A very evil op-ed appeared in the War Street Journal today: It argues that the US atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because it obviated an Allied landing on Japanese soil, which would have cost many, many more lives—American, Japanese, and other Oriental lives too. But, even assuming, arguendo, ALL of the implicit premises of this author (the war was justified in the first place; unconditional surrender was required—not the face saving conditional surrender the Japanese would have accepted at this point; this was not the opening battle in the Cold War), his conclusion still does not logically follow. For, the US could have first dropped these weapons of mass destruction on uninhabited Japanese islands as a demonstration of their terrible power. Only afterwards, if no unconditional surrender were forthcoming, would such heinous acts be justified (remember, I am still operating according to the implicit premises of the warmongers.)

The Best of Walter E. Block