WITH my (t)rusty sword and shield I have to risk a brief engagement with the lance of the redoubtable BrianM Quail on what he calls the “Hiroshima Fallacy", meaning bombing Hiroshima was illogical and wrong. He says that under the rules of war you may not rape, torture, kill prisoners of war or deliberately target the civilian population, all of which are what the Japanese were infamous for doing throughout the war.
As they slowly fought the Japanese back towards their mainland, the US experienced large losses in overcoming fanatical resistance in taking, for example, Iwo Jima. Faced with the prospect of huge losses (on both sides ) in invading mainland Japan, the US called on the Japanese to accept the inevitability of their ultimate defeat and to surrender. When they did not, the US were faced with having to choose between invading or demonstrating their intention to force surrender by using the massive destructive effect of their atom bomb.
They chose the latter course but even then it took two such bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki before the Japanese capitulated, which shows the level of resistance any attempted invasion would have encountered. I believe the decision to use the atom bombs was both logical and correct.
Alan Fitzpatrick,
10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.
IN his response (Letters, May 9) to Brian Quail's denunciation of nuclear weapons Keith Howell places himself firmly in the "multilateral disarmament camp". My long experience of discussing this issue with people suggests he is in the majority camp. However, being in the majority is not the same as being right.
The idea of multilateral disarmament sounds reasonable to most people, but they fail to analyse the concept. Retaining nuclear weapons is not retaining "an ability to stand up from what is right", because having them means one possesses and is promulgating one's willingness to commit indiscriminate mass murder. Indiscriminate mass murder is not "right".
Peter Martin,
Sruth Ruadh, Milton, Strathconon, Muir of Ord.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel