Thoughts on my creative argument

The last piece I wrote for my class was a creative argument. The class was given the choice of a short story, satirical news story, or a sonnet. I chose the sonnet only by accident. When I woke up one morning this popped into my head immediately. I was delighted and almost a little guilty when my homework was finished in under ten minutes.

When I wrote this piece, I was not attempting to present a pacifist view. It's a short statement of (for lack of a better word) frustration that resulted from this term's research.

All of my study lead me to these three conclusions: First, I probably would have made the same decision as President Truman. Second, Truman's decision was a courageous one--maybe even the right one. Third, mankind consistently comes up with crummy solutions for crummy problems.

The third point is what this sonnet is trying to communicate: the futility of it all. The atomic bomb was intended to be the device that brought an end to the War and gave the world peace. It brought an end to the war, all right. It also propelled the world into a new day of terrible weapons and fear.

True, it would have been better if only the Soviet's hadn't stolen our secrets and used them against us in a forty-year war. Or maybe it would have been OK if the combination of the bomb and the disaster at Cherynobyl in the mid-80's hadn't happened and we weren't skittish about nuclear power even to this day. Possibly it would have been fine if we didn't see the leader of some rogue government making less-than-idle threats on a daily basis in our media.

The fact is that it all started in 1945 on a day in August when we were doing the best that we could.

Creative Argument

Victory?

The bomb is utter destruction to all,
Though we hardly would have known it.
The aim was just to shock and appall,
Then boldly stand and own it.

Among those blessed enough to live,
In the midst of Hiroshima’s devastation.
There grew a lifelong struggle to forgive,
All those “now victorious” nations.

But all those celebrating victors would never know.
That from that from that day and ever on
Japan’s present pain and what the future would show
Of the ever-present terror of the atomic bomb.

How ironic to know, on the day that we win,
It is only the day when more sorrow begins.

Eloquent Letter, Part 3

How can we not say that there is a very real threat facing the liberated people of the modern world? How can we not say that the questioning the validity of a desperate--even frantic, if necessary--struggle is foolhardy. How can we say that the ones among these liberated people who do the questioning are on a fool's errand?

The idea that the war in which we are now engaged is merely a slogan or pet phrase produces that type of divisive speech that turns back the clock of the national debate. How will we accomplish a unified plan for security in our nation with talk that relegates the entire premise of this necessary war to foolish doublespeak? It cannot be justified, nor can an all-to-late call for “strong diplomacy” after this type of talk (Edwards). Instead, it becomes much like sending invitations to a wedding when the engagement has already been broken.

This is a day when the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction is a grim reality. For this reason, public figures should work together to deal with the problems that surpass nuance and that split hairs over implementation and strategy. While I am certain of your desire to strengthen this greatest nation, your choice of words causes the average citizen to stop paying attention to your message and see you as a more unreasonable man than you have consistently been known to be. I pray that this will not become the prevailing opinion of a public servant whose potential vision could be a catalyst for justice and liberty not only within the borders of America, but beyond it's shores, also.

Once again allow me to state my admiration of your service to our proud country. I hope this letter finds you in all the promise that life, and this blessed nation, have to offer.

Yours for the future of America,
Eli G.

Eloquent Letter, Part 2

This first generation of WMD is relatively mild in its decimating power. That is, compared to the present-day versions of the weapons that are in many cases smaller and easier to manufacture, and in rarer, but by no means absent cases, much more devastating. Even people in our seemingly impregnable country are seized with fear upon mention of one of our cities being struck with such a weapon.

Examples of the reality of such weapons in our own generation of WMD’s and their use abound. Recently, the arrest and trial of Dhiran Barot in London broke open the story of a terrorist cell that was conspiring to attack specific targets in both the United States and Great Britain ("Briton"). The plan included the use of a “dirty bomb” that would be simple to manufacture, easy to transport, and able to spread enough radioactive material to affect many people in a densely populated area. Though not on the scale of the weapons used against Japan in 1945, the exposure to radiation along with the chaos and confusion that would be caused by the detonation of a dirty bomb in an American city would be like nothing in the countries’ history.

Terrorists like Barot have taken their cues from much more dangerous world leaders such as Saddam Hussein. Hussein’s poison gas attack on the people of his own nation in Halabja in March of 1988 produced images that recalled memories of the Jewish Holocaust or Hiroshima in 1945 ("Saddam's Chemical Weapons"). Many have decried the Clinton and Bush Administrations' policy of unseating this genocidal dictator. I contend that those who would call this action less than noble suffer, at best, from a case of too many years of comfort in a comfortable society and, at worst, from a case of too many ignorant ideas in a worldview filled with ignorance.

Though Hussein is now a deposed despot, his philosophies live on through many disciples. As I write this letter, we are seeing the very real threat of nations such as Iran and North Korea in a relentless pursuit of nuclear capability. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, while forming a plan of nuclear development, has repeatedly called for the complete annihilation of our ally, the State of Israel (Yoong). The unelected Chairman Kim Jong-Il of North Korea already claims their nation's possession of nuclear weapons and an arsenal of ballistic missiles pointed toward our ally, Japan (Ripley). Combine these facts with attacks from "homegrown" terrorist cells in Russia, the United Kingdom, and Spain, and we find ourselves as a free and peace-loving people that may not be far from the terrors of August of 1945.

Eloquent Letter, Works Cited

Works Cited

"Briton Admits Plot To Bomb U.S. Targets." CBS News. 10 October 2006. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/12/terror/main2084733.shtml.

Edwards, John. "A Strong Military For a New Century." Council On Foreign Relations. May 2007. http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/.

Hersey, John. Hiroshima. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

Ripley, Amanda. "A Telling North Korea Journey." The New York Times. 3 December 2002. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9800E5D81F38F930A35751C1A9649C8B63

"Saddam's Chemical Weapons Campaign: Halabja, March 16, 1988." Bureau of Public Affairs.14 March 2003. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm.

Yoong, Sean. "Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis." washingtonpost.com. 3 August 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/08/03/ AR2006080300629.html.

Before you read my eloquent letter...

Allow me to explain that it was taken from a completely different angle than my position paper in an attempt to broaden the issue. I chose to make a case, not against WMDs or America's use of them in WWII, but against a public figure that fails to understand the terror of the atomic bomb and the history of WMDs and their use.

The object of my reproof? Former US Senator John Edwards. Senator Edwards's decrying of the War on Terror as a "bumper sticker" a few weeks back made him the most logical target of a letter geared to someone who doesn't seem to have a sense of history.

I really don't have any desire to pick on the Senator, but a letter of this type requires a targeted audience.

This piece received a 99% final grade for its content, language, grammar, and flow. The one point I lost was from the logic section of the grading rubric. It basically came down to my use of Saddam Hussein as an example of a modern-day threat. I'll let you all judge for yourselves before I go into that argument.

As usual, please don't steal this. I would hate to have you flunk just because I posted this on the web.

Position Paper

The McCloy Compromise

The United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan at the end of World War II could have been avoided if certain conditions had been offered. U.S. Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy stated these positions: Tell the Japanese about the weapon and offer them a chance to keep their Emperor (Giovannitti and Freed 136).

The United States miscalculated their strategy with the Japanese by under-estimating their value of honor. The mention of a specific weapon and its terrible consequences would have sounded more respectable from a much-hated adversary than what appeared to be idle threats about “prompt and utter destruction” (Farrell). In addition to this, the allowance of the Emperor to rule what would soon become a conquered nation would assure the Japanese people that defeat by the Allied powers did not mean disrespect.

Even though many argue that a revelation of the atomic bomb to the Japanese would have spoiled the element of surprise, the value of surprise at this point of World War II is overstated. Shock was not wanting to a nation who, by this time, had experienced massive incendiary bombing raids—some which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in one night. These raids were predicted by Major General Curtis E. LeMay to, essentially, bring an end to the war by October of 1945 (Miller 329). After the dropping of the bomb, the war ended in September: one month earlier.

Although offering these particular conditions may not have guaranteed a Japanese surrender, their reasonability and simplicity make them worth the effort. The effort could have been one that saved hundreds of thousands of men, women and children from a horrifying death.

Works Cited

Farrell, Robert H., Ed. "Chapter 7: The Potsdam Declaration, July 26." Truman and the Bomb, a Documentary History. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/ study_collections/bomb/ferrell_book/ferrell_book_chap7.htm.

Giovannitti, Len, and Fred Freed. The Decision To Drop the Bomb. New York: Coward McCann, Inc, 1965.

Miller, Donald L. D-Days in the Pacific. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

About my exploratory essay

The preceding essay was my first paper for my Writing 122 class that I take on Tuesday evenings.

#1: Please do not steal this paper! In addition to being unethical and probably illegal, this website has enough traffic to allow a Google search to find its specific content on the first try. If your teacher finds it YOU WILL FAIL YOUR CLASS! It happens all the time.

#2: Last night I learned that I got a 98%! Awww, yeah!!!

Exploratory Essay, Position #3 and Conclusion

John J. McCloy, assistant Secretary of War during the Truman administration, best communicated the compromise view during a meeting of top military advisors on June 18, 1945, when he summarized the changes he would make to U.S. policy in two key points: Before dropping the bomb the U.S. should tell Japan “that we had the bomb and that we would drop the bomb” and that upon surrender “we would permit them to choose their own form of government, including the retention of the Mikado (or Emperor)” (Giovannitti and Freed 136). The reasoning behind this argument is, first, that telling the Japanese specifically and explicitly about the atomic bomb, possibly with the support of film or photographs, would have caused the Japanese to move more quickly to the then inevitable surrender process. Secondly, offering the Japanese people the retention of Emperor Hirohito would preserve Japan’s national honor, a cultural trait of much importance in their society. Because President Truman had called for unconditional surrender some that hold this viewpoint believe that not enough consideration was given to the Japanese Emperor compromise. While there are many variations on this perspective, the basic elements remain the same. It has the backing of many respected scholars and historians and is considered a relevant third voice in the debate of the dropping of the bomb.

The United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan had repercussions that have carried to the present day. The nuclear age has brought us a new world with all its benefits and dangers. Whether the benefits brought in 1945 were worth the horrors seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and those feared of a rogue government with nuclear weapons—are still fiercely questioned today.

Exploratory Essay, Position #2

By mid-1945 incendiary bombing raids by the Americans had destroyed many of the strategic targets on mainland Japan. Their natural, industrial and military resources were decreasing with every year of the war (D’Olier et. al 21-22). Defeat was imminent and hope for an Imperial Japanese empire that matched the original vision of Emperor Hirohito was beyond unthinkable. D’Olier’s Bombing Survey states that bombing raids on Tokyo on the morning of March 9, 1945, alone caused 185,000 casualties (20). The dropping of the atomic bomb was, to many living in fear on the Japanese mainland, an insult to a nation that had already been brought to its knees. “I thought it was absolutely unnecessary,” Japanese Foreign Ministry official Toshikazu Kasi stated, “because by the time the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, we were conducting negotiations with the Soviet government and looking toward an early end of hostilities and we were completely exhausted. And the (Japanese) Navy and the Army, too, were thoroughly becoming amenable to the idea of peace.” (“Episode 24: The Bomb.” The World at War). This view was not one exclusive to the citizens of Japan, but was also held by many Americans, including U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Alperowitz 4). But somewhere in the middle of these views that were for or against the dropping of the bomb is an opinion that has become more popular in recent years.

Exploratory Essay, Intro and Position #1

The United States’ Dropping of the Atomic Bomb On Japan

The present day debate over weapons of mass destruction, their possession and arms negotiation has risen to a high over the last five years, but there was one generation who saw the terrible destruction of these weapons with their own eyes. Debate over the United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II has lasted for more than sixty years; this series of works will explore the pros and cons of that decision. This policy, set in 1945, brought us into a new age of global conflict and nuclear energy capability. I researched the argument for the United States and their decision, the argument against the decision and a compromise view that believes that certain adjustments to the U.S. policy would have made the dropping of the bomb much less likely.

Those who support the dropping of the bomb purport that in 1945 the U.S.A. was at the end of a worldwide struggle that had lasted for six years. The public was “war weary” and a means to end the war as quickly as possible was greatly desired among the American public. When the Commander In Chief and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt died in April of 1945, his Vice President, Harry S Truman, was installed into Roosevelt’s office. President Truman began his war policy by declaring that the only agreement that he would accept from the Japanese government was “unconditional surrender” (McCullough 382). The new President—while very aware of the public war fatigue—was soon informed after taking the office about the Roosevelt Administration’s secret project to develop a bomb that would cause mass destruction, and with information supplied by his Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, decided to drop the bomb in the summer of 1945, according to a declassified memo sent from Stimson to Truman on July 30, 1945 (War 41011). Truman felt compelled to make this decision not only because of the pressure of U.S. citizens, but because he believed the Japanese were determined to lure the U.S. into a ground war on the Japanese mainland that would cost hundreds of thousands, or perhaps, millions of lives on both sides (Giangreco 538-539). However, many of the people who lived on the Japanese mainland held a different view.

Exploratory Essay, Works Cited

Works Cited

Alperowitz, Gar. The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.

D’Olier et. al. United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War). Washington: GPO, 1946

Giangreco, D. M. "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications." Journal of Military History 61 (July 1997), online at http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm.

Giovannitti, Len, and Fred Freed. The Decision To Drop the Bomb. New York: Coward McCann, Inc, 1965.

HQ U.S. Forces European Theater. War 41011. July 30, 1945. http://www.trumanlibrary .org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-07-30&documentid=5& studycollectionid=abomb&page number=1

Kasi, Toshikazu. “Episode 24: The Bomb.” The World at War. Prod. Jeremy Isaacs. 1973. DVD. A&E Television Networks, 2004.

McCullough, David. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.

Update on class

We are heading into the fourth week of classes today and I am in the middle of learning argument every Tuesday evening in my writing class at Clackamas Community College.

The teacher asked us to pick one topic to write about for the entire term. There are three qualifiers for the topic. One: it must be a relevant issue (martians and bigfoot and such wouldn't have enough juice to make it through the term). Two: it must be an issue that is not so near and dear that you can't see anything but one viewpoint (abortion, Creation/evolution, the war in Iraq). Three: the topic must have three viewpoints from which to argue (for it, against it, some compromise view in between).

My topic? The United States' decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in World War II. That one right there is apparently enough to raise the hackles of some of my most controlled classmates, and probably a lot of people that read my blog.

I'm posting two polls that will ask about this issue. First is a poll on your opinion on the issue. Next is whether I should post my work on DARKSAYINGS.

Life in REALTIME

I kicked off a new blog slogan today. Hope you like it.

My life really is more than just in realtime lately. It's short on time. I've been busy helping friends, at church, and, most recently, in a writing class that I take at night. I think this class will make the blog more enjoyable.