Bomb was still best way to end WWII, but now should be banned
It has been over 70 years since the attack by Japanese armed forces on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941; the act of war that propelled the United States into World War II.
It was a total and brutal war that lasted four years, and ended with the dropping of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities. The result was thousands dying horrible deaths. Questions have been raised in later years as to whether the bombs were necessary to end the conflict.
Until 1854, Japan had been a closed society. In that year, it was opened up by Commodore Matthew Perry and the U.S. Navy. By the 20th century, Japan had developed into a world power, with a modern army, navy and air force. The problem had always been that the country lacked natural resources, such as iron, oil, rubber, etc. — everything had to be imported.
Japan had been at war with China since 1932 and had carved out an empire consisting of Korea, Manchuria and the coastal area of China. Sanctions were placed on the empire by the League of Nations and the United States.
Rather than retreat, the Japanese answer was the attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, quickly followed by attacks on Singapore, Malaya, the Philippines and most of southeast Asia. They seemed unstoppable with victory after victory. The outcome of the war in 1942 was very much in doubt.
Gradually, the Japanese were pushed back across the Pacific, resisting every island, every foot of land — they usually fought to the last man. The closer to their home islands of Japan, the harder they fought.
By 1945 Japan had lost men, ships and territory, but showed no sign of giving up. There were huge losses on both sides. It was felt that an invasion of the home islands of Japan would result in a blood bath. It would require a force of 5 million American troops with a possible million American casualties, plus countless millions of Japanese dead and wounded.
The bombs, horrible as they were, probably saved many lives if an invasion had been undertaken. But I never want to see another used in anger.
All nuclear, as well as chemical, weapons should be banned from this planet. What happens if they fall into the hands of terrorists?
Schumer hypocritical on business tax credit
The Dec. 11, Gazette carried a front page story [about] Sen. Charles Schumer wanting a renewal of a “critical” tax credit for the Galesi Group. His argument is that this is needed for development and the creation of jobs.
So what happened to “paying their fair share?” Or “paying just a little bit more?” Don’t the Democrats say their “balanced approach” to “solving our debt problem” requires an increase in taxes? And here Schumer is pushing for a “big business” tax credit — something that means they pay no taxes!
I’m sure that there is a “fat-cat” CEO at the head of this company and there are plenty of millionaires who work there. (Or maybe it’s $250,000-aires — it’s hard to keep track of who “the rich” are anymore.) We may never know, but was this tax credit part of the original Bush tax cuts? Has the Galesi group given any money to Schumer’s campaign?
It is just amazing that Schumer can go on TV and constantly berate “big corporations” and “the rich” for not paying their fair share, denying that tax increases will have any negative effect on the economy, yet turn around and say we have to extend tax cuts for “the rich” because not doing so will have a negative effect on the economy.
State doesn’t have money for Adirondack land deal
I am a member of the Gooley Club, located on the Essex Chain of Lakes affected by The Nature Conservancy’s purchase from Finch Pruyn [Dec. 3 Gazette].
In a July 2011 letter, I made mention that due to the large budget deficit, New York state should not follow through with the planned acquisition of the property. This past summer Gov. Cuomo announced that the state was going to follow through with the purchase plan.
I have to ask why the state is compelled to spend this money, in the face of the billions of dollars needed to rebuild from the damages caused by storms Irene and Sandy?
The Nature Conservancy already owns the property in question. The property is now safe from development. If The Nature Conservancy really wants the lands in question open to public access and use, it should do so without any further monetary involvement from the state.
Mark R. Sollohub
The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.
There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.
All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.
Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.
For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.
For more letters, visit our Web site: www.dailygazette.com.