Letters: Aug. 31, 1970

The New Morality

Sir: The advent of nuclear warfare has added a new chapter to the age-old paradox of the morality of war. Conventionality, not humanity, is the new criterion to rationalize the act of killing.

The hundreds of thousands killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo were acceptable: it was done by conventional means.

The millions of casualties incurred by the clash of land armies on the Japanese mainland would be acceptable: it would be done by conventional means.

The starvation of millions of women and children as a result of a continued blockade of Japan would be acceptable: it would be done by conventional means.

The killing of 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tragedy of mankind: it was done by nuclear weapons.

The TIME Essay [Aug. 10] tends to underestimate the tenacity of the Japanese by applying Occidental standards of defeat to the Oriental principles of war. Tarawa, with its six survivors of 4,000; Okinawa, with its kamikaze, bear true testimony to the prevalent fanaticism.

The scenario of a "blow for show" has one fatal drawback: there were no more bombs. It would have taken at least another year to produce enough fissionable material to manufacture another bomb.

FRANK H. MALLEN

Lieutenant Commander, U.S.N.

Newport News, Va.

Sir: After acknowledging the incredible destruction and horror of the atomic bombs, and after considering the alternatives, I find it inconceivable that your Essay could begin to imply that dropping the Bomb was anything vaguely related to a "consciously moral decision." I suppose there are rationalizations that can be adopted to soothe this nation's guilty conscience, but to justify a mistake by tagging such an abomination as moral is only to emphasize the perversion of any remaining moral sense in this country today.

ANNE MARY WHITING

Farmington, Mich.

Sir: Your Essay implies that the Japanese were not warned. This is untrue: for ten days prior to Aug. 6, U.S. bombers rained thousands of leaflets upon the Japanese mainland spelling out the consequences of continuing the war. The first bomb was followed by a three-day waiting period, during which the Japanese High Command had triple the time needed to change its mind; when no reply was forthcoming, the second bomb was unleashed.

I feel we were completely justified. As is usual with the liberal media nowadays, Uncle Sam is always at least partially wrong in whatever he does.

RICHARD F. OLES

Baltimore

Sir: I was reminded of the words of Robert E. Lee: "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it."

EDWIN MOORE

San Diego

Living Life Whole

Sir: The sensitive and knowledgeable cover story on aging [Aug. 3] could not have appeared at a more appropriate and helpful time, as we prepare for the 1971 White House Conference on Aging. The attitudes and knowledge of the nation about its older citizens will have major effect upon the success of such a conference.