Skin the Survivor: The Amazing Life of an American Icon

Known in Japanese as “Father Island”, Chichijima is the biggest in the Ogasawara archipelago, and strategically located in the Pacific Ocean for an empire attempting to make the most of their moves against a western superpower. Expanding upon a modest naval port built in 1914, the Japanese created a key World War II post upon the island that rises out of the Pacific roughly 1000 kilometers south of mainland Japan and 250 kilometers north of Iwo Jima. Chichijima sent critical troops and supplies to its more well known neighbor island before the famous late winter battle took place. Yet while American troops famously raised their flag atop Iwo Jima’s Mount Suribachi, they never captured Chichijima in wartime. This does not mean that they did not try to; quite the opposite. Even before the battle of Iwo Jima, Chichijima was a thorn in the Allies’ side due to its prominent role as radio communications hub for the Japanese Navy. In order for the Americans to achieve in the Pacific Theater, Chichijima simply had to go.

In September 1944, the United States Navy took to the air and assembled the Avengers, in this case, four TBM Avenger torpedo bombers. This was the same plane that Paul Newman flew on as a rear gunner, but as cool as the man who played Cool Hand Like was, we are not here to discuss him. We’re here to talk about Skin.

Fairly fresh off of being called up to the big leagues as the (then) youngest naval airman ever on June 9th of 1943, a skinny pilot who was three days way from turning 19 was making a name for himself. Eventually his slim figure garnered him the nickname “Skin”. Skin’s skill was evident, and his squadron helped win the massive Battle of the Philippine Sea, but it was his role in a critical attack on Chichijima that cemented his legacy as a Navy airman.

On September 2, 1944, Skin and company took flight over the island with the intent to knock out the radio tower and kill the island’s critical communication. All the planes took heavy fire, including Skin’s, and he knew he was going down. However, before bailing into the ocean, Skin dropped his payload and BOOOM! took down the tower! Skin’s two crewmen died. He was one of nine total airman who had successfully survived crash landings, but the other eight were captured, brought to Chichijima’s Japanese commanders, and tortured. In what is now known as the Chichijima Incident, the eight unfortunate airmen were beaten and later beheaded under the order of Lieutenant General Yoshio Tachibana, who even encouraged his men to eat the livers of the Americans. Tachibana was later tried, convicted of war crimes, and hanged.

Skin was lucky enough to be rescued by the USS Finback, a submarine that carried him away to safety as the only survivor of his squadron who had to bail out in the raid on Chichijima. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his heroism, but he was more focused on a different aspect of the battle’s aftermath: why, of nine men, was he the only one to survive? Did he have some greater purpose, or role yet to play? As it happens, he did. Some time after the battle, he married his girlfriend, Barbara Pierce, and he would remain devoted to her for the next 73 years. Once discharged from the Navy, Skin attended Yale and earned an economics degree. He even was elected president of his fraternity!

Of course, this would pale to later accomplishments, as he would be eventually be elected to a more prominent presidential office where he was no longer known as “Skin” the hotshot Navy airman, but George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States of America.

Following graduation from Yale, Bush promptly moved with his family to Texas and became a successful oil businessman. After a few attempts to jump into politics, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966. He never made it into the Senate, but then-President Nixon pegged him to become Ambassador to the United Nations. His time there was known mostly for his unsuccessful attempt to sway the UN from expelling Taiwan from the floor in favor of the People’s Republic of China. He later worked as a liaison to China for Gerald Ford, but first followed his UN gig with one as head of the Republican National Committee.

As RNC Chairman, Bush’s political beliefs and faith in Richard Nixon, the man who had placed him in prime positions, was shaken by the Watergate scandal. Initially, Bush defended his party and president, but it soon became clear to him that the latter had committed crimes and was a threat to the former. He encouraged Nixon to resign, and helped rebuild the Republican party after Nixon obliged. Gerald Ford considered Bush for his vice president, but instead selected him to fill the role of CIA Director. Bush only spent just under a year in the position throughout 1976 until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency on January 20, 1977. Brief though it was, Bush is credited with reinstating trust in the CIA in his time there after some major scandals had shaken the agency – although his CIA also supported Operation Condor, which lent a hand to Latin American dictators where it helped American interests out.

Hey, this ain’t no puff piece, and George H.W. Bush certainly made mistakes. Nevertheless, in rare form for political candidates of any era, he often admitted when he was wrong, sometimes directly, and many an occasion with policy change. He ran for president himself in 1980, and lost, but was chosen by eventual winner Ronald Reagan to be vice president, and after eight years of service in that role, he won the big election for himself. In time after taking over the presidency, Bush realized that Reagan had made some big oopsies, especially where his economic policy (which Bush never loved) was concerned. Bush went against his predecessor, and his own famous campaign promise (“Read my lips: no new taxes”), in an effort to fix the financial situation.

Besides seeking balance in the budget, Bush also balanced his own agenda with the needs of all Americans and frequently worked with a Democrat-dominated Congress to pass some of the most important policy in the last few decades, and perhaps some of the most important in American history.

At his core, George H.W. Bush stuck to his guns – well, not really, actually – and this is what made him a beloved leader and American figure: his ability to admit when he was wrong and to put aside political pushes when it interfered with progress. We all change over time, and George H.W. Bush was no exception. His direction may have wobbled at times, as our own does with time, but he always sought to move this country in the right direction, and even though that may not have been immediately apparent to all of his constituents and contemporaries at the time of his presidency, it is clear that time has shone what a great American he truly was. Rest in peace, Mr. President, or as I probably should say, Barbara’s loving husband.

Thanks for reading. If you want to explore the life of George H.W. Bush more extensively, then read this New York Times article and watch this Vox video:

Goodbye Mr. Bush,

Alex

死のホワイトフラッシュ (White Flash of Death)

At 8:15 AM on August 6^th 1945, the United States detonated the world’s first nuclear weapon in a war scenario when they dropped the atomic bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima. Three days later they detonated the second and only other, “Fat Man”, on Nagasaki. Previous tests were performed at a desert military facility in New Mexico to perfect the bomb’s destructive capability until the day when it would be ready and needed for use in World War II. Many leading scientists and physicists of the day were involved in the production of the atomic bomb, such as J. Robert Oppenheimer who famously recited, “I am become death.” after creating the bomb. Despite their hard work to develop atomic weaponry, most of these men never wanted to see the day when their device of death would ever be used. They did. How this day came to be, and how justified the dropping of the bomb was, are questions that still divide opinions today.

In accordance with most religious views, Christian teachings (of which I’m more familiar with coming from a predominantly Catholic family and attending Catholic schools for 18 years) are used to help determine whether actions are just or not, and nonviolence and then just war are used in regard to war scenarios. When nonviolence fails to resolve the problem, Just War Theory – “legitimate political authorities are permitted as a last resort to employ limited force to rescue the innocent and establish justice” – is followed.

Many people support the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan and feel that they were necessary and moral actions. The main argument for this position is that dropping the bombs caused Japan to surrender, thus bringing an end to the war. Most importantly of all, it ended the war without requiring American ground and naval troops to invade Japan. Had this been the action taken instead, then more American soldiers would have died; how many would die we will never know, but invasions of the native land of a country at war typically prove to more bloody and grueling than battles on neutral sites or occupied territories. We have seen examples of this when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, as well as when America and Britain fought against the Nazis in Germany. Perhaps because of this earlier experience from the European war, as well as the generally greater intensity of the Pacific war, America opted to use the atomic bombs instead of risking more lives in a battle that would certainly be harder and may not be a successful venture for months, years, or at all.

The atomic bomb drops were not the first attacks the United States had made on mainland Japan. From February of 1945 until the atomic bombs were used, the USA fire-bombed many Japanese cities in an earlier effort to force Japan to surrender. Fire-bombing is just what it sounds like and its effects have been described as horrific. One American military official compared the early fire-bombing raids to the atomic bombs saying, “We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.‎” (Selden 1990). According to this account, the practice of fire-bombing was less humane than the use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, nuclear weapons proved to be a much more effective method of bringing about Japan’s surrender than fire-bombing which had been unsuccessful in doing this for six months. This fulfills the Just War Theory criteria of Probability of Success which states: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success. The chance for success in achieving Japan’s surrender was much higher with the atomic bombs than it was with the fire-bombs, and most likely would have been higher than an American land invasion’s chances.

At the time of the war, Japan’s leaders had instilled a fear of Americans in their citizens through propaganda in an attempt to rally non-combative Japanese residents to their cause. In some cases, this irrational fear was used to make Japanese civilians more aggressive towards Americans to the point where they would attack any US troops who came through their town. If civilians act in such a way then it can be said that they are more like soldiers than innocent bystanders, thus attacks on them, or attacks that harm or kill them along with military targets are justified because they are behaving more like soldiers than civilians.

It may not be a strong argument supporting the dropping of the bombs, but the ignorance of the terrible effects of their radiation should be taken into account. Had President Truman known that the aftermath would be worse than the explosions then he would have reconsidered sending in the troops. Instead, he and his advisors made what they felt to be the best decision given the known circumstances. One of the main reasons for their decision is the final point of Just War Theory: Last Resort, which states: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. During the fire-bombing raids, the United States, as well as Britain and China, demanded that Japan surrender. The Japanese government refused several times and the US was left with no choice but to demonstrate the power of their arsenal because a diplomatic solution could not be worked out.

Finally, perhaps the US was afraid of the potential technological advancements of the Japanese. How could we be sure that we were the only one with nuclear weapons? The US started its research into nuclear weapons after Albert Einstein urged President Franklin Roosevelt to do so because the Nazis had begun nuclear research. Even if Japan did not develop these weapons, perhaps Germany did and had given some to Japan before surrendering in Europe. We know now that Japan did not yet have nuclear weapons, but the US leaders at the time probably felt that even just the slightest chance that Japan did justified the urgency to use the bombs when we did – a “bomb him today so he doesn’t bomb you tomorrow” precautionary measure.

Despite these reasons, not everyone agrees with the decision to use nuclear weapons to try to end the war with Japan. The most apparent evidence supporting the argument that dropping the bombs was immoral is the aftermath of the explosions, both immediately after  and many years later. Hiroshima lost 90,000 – 160,000 people, while Nagasaki lost 60,000 – 80,000 of its people; about half of each cities victims died in the explosion, while the rest died slower, more painful deaths from radiation poisoning or burns. Because the US had not conducted thorough research on the post-detonation effects of the atomic bomb they were not aware that its deadliest aspect was the radiation it released upon its dropzone. Many people died because the US did not know its own weapons’ destructive power. Most of these people were civilians too, for neither city had a heavy military presence. This violates Just War Theory’s Noncombatant Immunity, which states: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians. Obviously, there was little or no care taken to reduce the risk to civilians, especially considering most of the risks were unknown. This also violates Proportionality, which says: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property. Again, the bombs were dropped on large cities with a much higher percentage of civilians than military personnel, and considering they destroy almost everything in sight it becomes clear that little to no effort was made to prevent civilians from being involved. Furthermore, because the bombs annihilated the cities the urging of “just enough force” apparently was ignored.

The US was not even involved in WWII until December 7^th 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor. After this unprovoked attack, the US launched a counterattack bombing raid over Tokyo, but it could not offset the emotional sting from the surprise attack in Hawaii. The detonation of a pair of atomic bombs could deliver such a blow, though, and would demoralize Japan even more than they demoralized us. However, the circumstances are not the same: Pearl Harbor was a military base and few to no civilians were harmed or even involved in that attack. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mostly occupied by civilians, and exacting revenge violates Right Intention which states: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.

By dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, the US certainly ensured that Japan suffered more, bringing up issues with Comparative Justice: to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other, and again Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. Did almost immediately ending the war outweigh all of the expected negative effects of the bombs? Perhaps not considering the bombs would not have been necessary at all if a diplomatic solution could have been reached. Japan had refused previous demands of surrender, but who is to say further insisting would have been a failure? It might have seemed unlikely at the time because of the strong will of the Japanese Empire which proudly declared it would never surrender when the war began; nevertheless, the tide of the war was rapidly shifting in favor of the Allies who had recently defeated Germany and ended the European war. Perhaps if Japan realized it could not repel the inevitable Allied attack and would lose the Pacific war, then maybe its leaders would adhere to Just War Theory’s Probability of Success and surrender. Allied diplomats may have been able to show Japan that continuing the war was a futile cause and convince the country to surrender. Nonetheless, the time they needed to attempt to achieve this goal was cut short by the atomic bombs.

Personally I feel that the dropping of the atomic bombs was necessary to bring about the swiftest end to World War II, but that targeting the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral and unnecessary, at least as the initial targets. The United States had been fighting Japan and other nations since entering the war in late 1941, and some of the other Allied nations had been fighting in the war years before us. By 1945 everyone was ready for the war to be over, and it looked like it would be after the defeat of the Nazis who initiated the whole conflict. However, Japan still remained resilient and refused to give up, even as the US and fellow Allies advanced more rapidly towards the mainland of Japan. After years of the fiercest fighting US troops had yet encountered, Japan’s stubbornness to accept inevitable defeat called for some more efficient method of ending the war. The gradual advance of troops was succeeding, but at heavy costs for the Allies, especially the US. It does not seem unreasonable then that the US would decide to employ nuclear weapons. While there was still much unknown about the bombs’ destructive power, especially it radioactive aftermath, one thing was very clear: the atomic bomb was unlike any other weapon ever used before as it would almost completely destroy its target in an instant. It was a quick fix. From the American standpoint it made sense because Japan could be coaxed into surrender without needing to send wave after wave of American soldiers into battle, knowing that many of them would be killed and not knowing when they would finally succeed, or if they would at all. These factors combined with the worries of what Japan might do if allowed more time to act (keep in mind we did not know if they had similar weapons or not) made American action immediately necessary. We had a tool which would almost certainly force the Japanese to surrender without having to lose another America life. From an American standpoint it is a no-brainer. The atomic bomb was the best card we could play at that point in the war.

Nevertheless, I feel that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not moral or necessary because they were non-military targets and had large populations of civilians. The film White Flash Black Rain shows that many of the survivors (and victims) of the explosions were children who were left orphaned and alone by the blasts. Furthermore, those few who did survive were disfigured and usually suffered ill effects from the radiation. The US did not know about these harmful effects, of course, but they did know about the civilian populations of the cities. What I believe the US should have done is drop the first bomb away from any civilized town, such as in the mountains or ocean (I know this still would have caused bad radioactive effects, but the degree to which humans would be harmed would have been less, and no one would have died in the explosion itself) so that Japan could have seen the awesome power of the weapon without suffering any civilian deaths. After this bomb, President Truman could have said the next target is a military base unless Japan immediately surrenders. If they still refused, the US could bomb one of the military bases and continued this trend (so as to keep within Just War criteria) until Japan surrendered. This would fulfill Last Resort by giving Japan the last opportunity to end the war and by only acting when there would be no other choice

Alex

References

Fandel, Jennifer. The Atomic Bomb: What in the World? The Creative Company, 2007.

Selden, Kyoko. The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. M.E. Sharpe, 1990.

Sullivan, Edward T. The Ultimate Weapon: The Race to Develop the Atomic Bomb. Holiday House, 2007.