Victor Davis Hanson Challenges Tucker Carlson: Show Me Where I Called Hiroshima ‘Glorious’

 Daily Signal   

. . . "If Tucker says that I was glorifying or I used the word that the use of these horrible weapons was glorious rather than necessary to save lives, I challenge him to produce that quote. And if he can’t produce that quote, I suggest he apologize."

"About a month ago, I talked about the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I made the argument for why the United States did that, used those devastating weapons. Not that I was happy about it, of course, but we all were commemorating the date. 

"In reaction to that and to a column I wrote to the same effect, Tucker Carlson recently said that I had called the dropping of the atomic bombs “glorious.” I will just take a little parenthetical here and say if he can produce the quote where I said glorious, I will pay him a thousand dollars, or better yet, maybe he can have a wager. I will say I never used the word glorious. He says I did. If he wants to back that up with a thousand-dollar bet, I’ll be happy to do it, and I’m not a wealthy person by any means. 

"What I said was that we dropped the bomb for three reasons, and the reasons were not those that the paleo right is alleging or the Left. We did not do it because we wanted to impress the Soviets. They got the bomb four years later, almost to the week. And they were in the process of assembling the information from espionage when we used the bomb. We knew they were going to get the bomb. 

"Nor did we do it to justify the expense of the Manhattan Project, nor did we do it because we don’t like so-called Asian people. We did it because we had just suffered 50,000 casualties on Okinawa, and we did not want to repeat that on the Japanese mainland, where there were up to 20 million militia, impressed civilians, and army personnel and 7,000 or 8,000 kamikazes. 

"And if you do the math of the defenders on Okinawa versus the losses of 50,000 dead, wounded, and missing and apply that to Japan, we may have lost, as planners had feared, 1 million. One million. 

"That was why we tried to use the bomb. 

In addition, other people pointed out that the Japanese were killing somewhere between 15,000 and above Chinese, Asians in general, and Pacific Islanders per day. 

"Of all the armies and militaries in World War II, as far as those who killed the most of their enemies and suffered the least doing it, the fewest, it was Japan." . . . More.

How to Prepare for Regime Change in Iran

 The American Spectator   

" . . .until there is regime change causing Iran’s abandonment of nuclear aspirations and an end to attacks on and harassment of tankers in the Gulf, the U.S will still need the means to strike Iranian targets." 

"At this point in the Iran conflict, it seems nothing dramatic will transpire before the November midterm elections. While President Trump is well known for unpredictability, a major bombardment would shock the world’s energy system and further raise the price of gasoline and diesel, hurting consumers, farmers, and various sectors. It would also further deplete U.S. stocks of munitions such as offensive cruise missiles and the Patriot and THAAD systems needed to defend U.S. assets and Gulf allies against Iran’s retaliation. Iran’s hopeful calculation is a Democratic sweep of Congress eventually resulting in a better deal for itself, recognition by the U.S. that it must withdraw its vulnerable bases from the Gulf, and a ruined Trump presidency.

"While battlefield metrics and decapitation of its government’s leadership have been impressive, Iran is driven by vindictiveness and is cognizant that the U.S. has not achieved strategic objectives: complete destruction of nuclear infrastructure, seizure of fissile material, total degradation of Iran’s armed forces and military-industrial complex, and regime change. Escalation by Iran is certainly their option, and with the recent withdrawal of the U.S. military from Shiite Iraq, Iran may be tempted to widen the conflict through its militias there, creating yet another front.

"Regardless of a Democratic sweep of at least the House of Representatives in November, and even a future Democratic administration in 2029, it is difficult to imagine a Biden-style full-scale, abrupt retreat from the Gulf, where nearly one-third of the world’s oil is produced. While Europe imported only 6 percent of its oil from the Middle East in 2025, it is nonetheless vulnerable to oil prices, as is India, which imported 3 million barrels per day from the Middle East in September. However, neither Europe nor India have the will or the military resources to secure the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea, and only the U.S. can assure the world’s energy security." . . .More.

Frank Schell is a former senior vice president of the First National Bank of Chicago and later was a management consultant. He was a lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago on South Asia public policy and is a contributor of opinion pieces to various journals. He has travelled extensively throughout Iran.