Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

Fascinating article on the decision to drop Atomic bombd on two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. Some newly released documents shed light on Truman's thinking. Notable:

But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved
the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts -- that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

I've often wondered why we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki three days apart, and then waited six days for Japan to surrender. If we were willing to wait six days, why drop two bombs? This article doesn't speak to this, but does say that "no one expected (Hiroshima) to prompt a quick surrender." Odd. I would think one nuclear bomb would prompt anyone to surrender.

UPDATE: Just read the wikipedia entry for the bombings. Because of the way wikipedia works (anyone can write and edit), the site does a tremendous job offering the arugments of both supporters and critics of the bombings. The article briefly mentions the point about the second bombing but doesn't offer any insight. Apparently Kurt Vonnegut made the same observation, so I've got that going for me.

|

In the know

Funny story in the NY Times on those cryptic oval bumber stickers.

|

No. 10 revisited

Here's the link to the 10th planet story. This site is awesome for breaking science news.

|

Stealth

The previews for the movie "Stealth" have made the film look utterly vapid for months. Now, the reviews are proving my suspicions right.

|

No. 10

Scientists have found another planet. It's twice the size of Pluto.

|

Androids freak me out

The caption isn't really clear ... but I believe that the "woman" in this photo is an actual android. If so, she's disturbingly real. Apparently, Westworld is right around the corner.

Pretty soon, we'll have to scrutinize our android's pupils while asking questions about a helpless tortoise to determine if they're human.

|

Death to "insurgents"

I missed this while on vacation:

Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word – "insurgent" – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as "insurgents."

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

Kudos to the Dallas Morning News.

|

Unions

Good reader from the WSJ on the woes of labor unions.

|

Capitulation

Just cracked open the latest issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, a publication I increasingly read for comedic purposes only. Tucked away at the bottom of the "letters" page sits the following announcement:



How very clever. Any CJR reader who doesn't also read Instapundit (I suspect I am the only person who reads both regularly) would think nothing of the blurb. But, as readers of various blogs are aware, Mr. Navasky has actually been working with the CJR for some time. The announcement was made only after the blogger David M pointed out his employment. A note from the journalism dean on the Web site fleshes out the details. As a former editor of the left-wing magazine, The Nation, critics are right to wonder if he's the right man to lead the supposedly non-partisan CJR.

Hats off to the meticulous author of the blurb. Note that the author doesn't welcome Navasky to the publication, but rather to the masthead -- an important distinction, but one that would go unnoticed by most readers.

Of course, most CJR subscribers believe that the problem with the media is that they are too right-wing. I'm sure few would object to his leadership.

Kudos to David M. for his work. Amazing what a guy and his pajamas can accomplish these days.

|

The return of NY Times bashing

Another collosal correction from the New York Times. Too bad the headline that stated "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos" wasn't actually rooted in any truth.

|

I'm back

Still decompressing. Forgot the miserable heat that is Atlanta. Anticipate blogging tomorrow.

|

Call to researchers

The following is an email I received through my graduate school listserv. The author is a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

Fellow researchers,

For years, many of us have looked for opportunities to plug our research on media, communications and culture into debates over policy and reform. Most recently, we met in May at the National Conference for Media Reform, generating a great deal of energy around a group we called the "Academic Brain Trust" for media reform research. We planned to launch the Brain Trust work to coincide with the start of the academic year in September, and intended to convene a variety of working groups on media issues. But circumstances now require us to quickly create the first of these working groups on media ownership. It is now open to join online at http://www.academicbraintrust.org/ownership.php.

This summer, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has begun the proceeding to rewrite the regulations governing the public interest limits on broadcast ownership. Specifically, he is taking up the rules that were remanded to the agency by the federal Courts for failing to pass evidentiary muster under the direction of his predecessor, Michael Powell. These include the rules prohibiting the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market, and the limits on the number of broadcast stations one company may own in a market. This is a big deal for media firms like Clear Channel, Gannett, Tribune Company and the Sinclair Broadcast Group that know how incredibly profitable it is to enjoy semi-monopoly power. It is heaven for them and their shareholders, but of dubious value for the citizenry. This is an extraordinary opportunity. Rarely do moments like this come along when academic research can play the decisive role in a policy decision. What is needed does not require a huge amount of labor or original research. In large part, what we need is a synthesis of existing research and the informed conclusions of experts who have studied these issues. Federal regulators, inundated with special-interest industry research, are simply not exposed to the straightforward scholarship that we can provide.

This voluminous industry research, if unchallenged, gives the appearance of being honest scholarship that reflects widely held views in the academy. As soon as genuine critical scholarship is provided to the public record, however, special interest research pales in comparison. In fact, the federal Court effectively acknowledged this crucial point when it threw out the FCC's attempted ownership rules changes in 2004. The FCC will soon open the proceeding for public comment. We fully expect Mr. Martin to attempt to eliminate ownership regulations, opening the door for further media consolidation. However, he faces a significant hurdle: the Court's high expectations for justification.

We believe that a body of quality research concerning a variety of questions at issue in this proceeding will be the difference between blocking further media consolidation and being trampled by it. Clearly, we are setting a research agenda aimed at offering arguments and evidence aimed at upholding public interest limits on media ownership. We are looking for honest scholarship, not a doctoring of the record, and we feel that an analysis of the facts is sufficient to prove our case. We do not need original research, though that is certainly welcome. In many cases, merely synthesizing existing work can be extremely helpful and convincing. And if, by chance, you believe the evidence indicates that there is no public interest in media ownership rules, feel free to contribute your research under your own auspices, or that of a pro-industry organization. Academic researchers and their graduate students have a critical role to play. But there is little time to lose. Within a dozen weeks, we must be prepared to submit into the record the research we have generated. Policy analysts in Washington have analyzed the record and produced a helpful list of research needs.

They vary across a wide range of topics and methodologies, including:1-Legal Analysis2-Market Structure Analysis3-Literature reviews4-Studies of media diversity, localism, and concentration5-Case studies6-Rebutals of pre-existing research in the recordPlease take a look at the full, annotated list of research needs in the PDF at http://www.academicbraintrust.org/Ownership_Research_List.pdf .Our window of opportunity is narrow, but our chances are very good for making a difference in a very important policy decision. On the Brain Trust webpage, www.academicbraintrust.org, you can sign up to join the working group. I look forward to working with you. Thank you in advance for your time, energy and commitment. For media scholars this is our moment in the sun.

Or, better yet, it is our moment of truth.

Onward,

Robert W. McChesney

|

Summer in Maine

This is the early morning view from my front porch on Westport Island, Maine. I'm having a fantastic vacation. I'm going to quit trying to find Internet access to blog. I'll return on July 25.

See you then.

|