Can we justify dropping the bomb?

“The myths of Hiroshima” (Opinion, Aug. 5) is more revisionist drivel, which unfortunately may gain sway as the vets of World War II continue to pass on 60 years after the war ended. It’s up to the progeny of those vets to relate what they had to say about the war.

My father served from 1938 to 1940, when he was discharged because of his age. But he was called back to duty soon after Pearl Harbor. He spent most of the war in the South Pacific. He always felt that using the atomic bomb was justified because it brought the war to a quick end, saving innumerable American lives.

It is certainly regrettable that many Japanese civilians died or were grievously injured, but the balance that was struck was weighted in favor of saving our own people. I believe there are many “boomers” like me who believe they might not be here today were it not for the quick end to the war following Nagasaki, which avoided an invasion of Japan that might have involved at least one of their parents.

GERRY FEINBERG

North Haven, Conn.

*

I deeply resent the article by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin claiming that dropping the bomb on Japan was not necessary. I well remember, as a 15-year-old, the news of a massive bomb dropped on Japan. I, and my family, knew the war was over. Dad was overseas with the 40th Division, which was planning to invade Japan. Undoubtedly, the bomb saved thousands of American lives when that invasion became unnecessary. Russia entering the war against Japan was a joke. Russia did not enter the war in the Pacific until it was essentially over, due to the bomb.

CHARLES JENNER

Los Alamitos

*

The only possible lesson that could be learned from dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities is that even the possession of nuclear weapons by any nation is a crime against humanity.

GARY E. KAMINSKI

Buena Vista, Pa.