Washington, D.C.

Robert Scheer warns readers to ponder the consequences of the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "Congress authorizes an expansion of the US nuclear program to better fight the war on terror by 'improving' the ultimate weapon of terror."

The 110th Congress has actually done a commendable job blocking Bush Administration requests for new nuclear weapons funding. The House Appropriations Committee denied the administration all of the funds it requested for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. This prompted the secretaries of state, energy and defense to release a short paper desperately threatening a resumption of nuclear testing if RRW is not fully funded.

As the Administration pleads for a new generation of the weapons Scheer rightly deems "the ultimate terrorist weapon that presents a continuing and growing threat to the survival of human life on Earth," it is worth noting that the weapons the U.S. used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki had 15- and 20-kiloton yields, respectively. The first two RRW bombs would yield 100 and 475 kilotons. The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thus even more significant as policymakers decide on funding for RRW. Should the US ever build and use such weapons, the devastation would be unimaginable.

Danny Hosein
Friends Committee on National Legislation
08/09/2007 @ 11:05am

Jones, Okla.

We give thanks for the survival of the husbands, fathers and sons of all those who with the hindsight of practiced fools would rather have seen more American servicemen dead in the war with Japan than Japan's quick unconditional surrender! Where are the same crocodile tears for the 2,000,000+ Chinese the Japanese butchered? (Not to mention other nations and islands suffering the same fate at Japanese hands.)

Rather than President G.W. Bush, the only current presidential candidate openly expressing what appears to be eager anticipation of aquiring the power of making a nuclear attack is Democrat Hillary R. Clinton! Funny, how she wants to use it to violate Pakistan's sovereignty, even at the type of costs detailed to kill one man! That is the kind of fanatic we should guard against!

John Kerr
08/08/2007 @ 10:55pm

Riverside, Calif.

It was a horror, but it was not hidden. Footage of the aftermath appeared soon after the war in newsreels, and I have seen it many times on television. Some of the survivors were treated in the US, and their arrivals and departures were reported in the media, along with their wounds.

If you were not alive during WWII, you may not appreciate how tough the Japanese were as soldiers. They were like Al Qaeda on steroids. Whole regiments would make suicidal frontal assaults with satchel charges. They weren't supposed to surrender, and they fought to the death. This was the experience of allied troops who fought the Japanese, and the invasion of Japan would not have been a walk in the park.

There were other horrors, such as the fire raids on Japanese cities that produced more deaths then the atomic bombs. They did not surrender because of those raids, and they were not the kind of people that would normally surrender.

Was dropping those bombs moral? No! Did dropping those bombs shorten the war and save Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a protracted conflict. Yes! Are there any easy answers? No! Do we want to see the use of nuclear weapons again? Hell, no!

Pervis J. Casey
08/08/2007 @ 4:06pm

Charlotte, N.C.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Obama would get Pakistan bombed.

Republican presidential candidate Congressman Tancredo would bomb Mecca and Medina.

Another Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Edwards, would focus on getting the job done in Afghanistan by concentrating our military power in that region.

Vice President Cheney repeatedly claimed that all the options in dealing with Iran are on the table.

It is obvious that President Bush was able to work together with the members of both parties from both legislative bodies, to reach a compromise by occupying Iraq as a middle ground for different preferences.

Senator Clinton agrees with all of them as long as it’s helpful in getting her elected.

The only radical candidate in the race for the White House is Congressman Kucinich, who wouldn’t bomb anybody.

Kenan Porobic
08/08/2007 @ 3:42pm