Atom Bomb and World War II

Yale professor Gaddis Smith finds U.S. attitudes (Opinion, July 30) toward the termination of World War II in the use of the atom bomb a metaphorical Rorschach test of our country’s course since 1945.

Of course, those who experienced a seemingly never-ending war against a die-rather-than-surrender enemy in the Pacific found and continue to find validity in President Truman’s pragmatic solution. The 1960s then brought forth the anti-status-quo forces as a byproduct of a controversial war.

This latter group has taken on the aura of elitism, and indeed seems to have found abundant nutrients in academia, with the latter’s just license for extrapolated thought and inherent insulation from the pragmatism of life outside the ivory tower.

Smith’s attempt at a conciliatory review of the issue shows us his personal Rorschach results: If you were against the Smithsonian Enola Gay exhibit, you must favor a flag-burning amendment and oppose integration of Vietnam into the world community.

To anyone who reads widely this appears as a forced correlation, an absolute non sequitur! Most of us viewed the proposed Enola Gay exhibit as representing Japan as victim, not aggressor, view the flag-burning amendment as useless and favor normalization of relations with Vietnam.

JAMES S. STEINER

Encino

*

* We will soon mark the 50th anniversaries of our first and last use of atomic bombs to destroy cities filled with people: “strategic bombing” of whole areas, including military targets.

I was once a pilot trained to deliver nuclear weapons. I have walked the streets of Hiroshima and have seen ground zero there through cross-hairs from a military plane. Having assembled a library of more than 3,000 volumes on the Atomic Age over the last 35 years, I have read most of the viewpoints regarding this pivotal period and its aftermath.

Our fighting forces applauded the quickest possible end to that miserable war. Victims of the bomb see themselves as targets of monumentally cruel and unusual punishment. How could either feel otherwise?

Smith rightly argues that we should appreciate the tragic ambiguity in these events. Both we and the Japanese have a lot of noncombatant blood on our hands. There certainly were mixed, yet understandable reasons for the use of both bombs. The horror of strategic bombing makes remorse for its victims absolutely appropriate. It is not an either/or proposition, but both/and.

AL BELL

Huntington Beach

*

* In proper perspective, the war in Europe ended in May, 1945, yet the war with Japan continued. Then, the theoretical destructive power of the bomb promised to end the lengthy conventional war that remained. The debate on whether the use of the bomb was valid is ongoing. However, what we do know is that its use immediately ended World War II. We also know that the use of the bomb demonstrated such destructive horror that had it not been used, the Cold War generation may have witnessed its use on a much larger scale.

JOHN F. STAMPFLI

Mission Viejo