The Second Bomb

John Pilger is at it again: if the Serb Karadik is to be put on trial for mass muder then why not Bush, Blair and company too? To which most people would answer "well, yes, I suppose there is a case to answer in the sense that in any and every war people are killed usually in large numbers." But what you have to ask yourself is: "are these wars justified?" and, of course, some will say "yes" and others will say "no".
Making the case for and against is a civilised and sane practice. Or should be. In Pilger's case he tries to appear cool, calm and collected but actually he is anything but.
And he is still ranting on about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maintaining that Japan was ready to negotiate a peace deal and that the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary.
Most commentators and historians reject this idea. The evidence is that Japan, especially the military, was in no mood to deal, but to fight to the last.
The dreadful dropping of the bombs was an act so barbarous that it is almost unbelieveable that someone could order it to be done in the 20th Century. But if a case can be made for its use I feel that Pilger might have been on firmer ground if he had concentrated more on the question of why the second bomb on Nagasaki was dropped. That seems to me inexcusable.