Nonmetallic Breastplates in Native North America

 

AI creation of ivory and antler armor with a musuem ascetic 

        A less common but significant criticism of the Book of Mormon concerns the apparent lack of metallurgy during its historical period. This lack would make metallic arms and armor, especially breastplates anachronistic. (See #23 here.)

        Setting aside broader explanations for anachronistic metallurgy and weaponry, the criticism of breastplates is particularly odd given the numerous historical examples of nonmetallic armor. In some regions, such breastplates continued to protect individuals against gunpowder weapons well into the 1800s. Thus, when critics insist that a breastplate must mean metal armor, they are imposing their preconceived image of medieval knights in shining armor onto the text. Outside of the artifacts discovered by Limhi’s scouts (Mosiah 8:8), which appear exceptional enough in their own right to warrant special attention, the term breastplate could easily refer to a variety of nonmetallic armor.

        Everything listed below has an upstream source but to prevent incredibly long footnotes I’m only citing Native North American Armor, Shields, and Fortifications by David Jones. (Though I  made several exceptions to name a primary source.) I also do not include various types of armor such as rod or slate armor that also have rigid torso protection and I limited myself to descriptions that included the term breast plate.[1]  

Examples of Nonmetallic Breastplates and Armor

California

- “The corselet had two layers. Within the inner layer the rods were sewn in tight horizontal layers, looking exactly like the hairbone breastplates of the Plains Indians.” (20)

Plains and Southwest

- “The Apaches…began making protective armor of tough, overlapping leather for both themselves and their horses, imitative of Spanish mail.” (40)

- At a 1731 battle, Apache warriors were wearing “leather breastplates,” also described as “leather jackets.” (85)

Northeast

- “Their breastplates were also a fabric of wood or little reed wands, cut in proportional lengths, clasped against each other, twined and woven very neatly with little cords made of antelope or deerskin…their breastplates were made to resist arrows with bone or stone heads but would have been no protection against iron arrowheads.” (58-59)

- “Some [Iroquois had] a sort of cuirass or breastplate of small pliable rings, very neatly worked.” (Pierre Charlevoix, 649, quoted in Jones, 60; repeated in Jones, 92–93)

- The same observer reported that the Mohawks “wear sea horse skins and barks of trees made by their art as impenetrable as steel, wearing a headpiece of the same.”  (60)

Pueblo

- Breastplates made of ribbons have been found at some Pueblo archaeological sites. (85)

Subarctic

- “In the latter 1770s, an account of the Cree stated that they wore ‘coats of mail, made of many folds of dressed leather, which are impenetrable to the force of arrows.’” (93)

- “The Chandalar Kutchin warriors’ breastplate, called eakin, was fashioned from the shovel antler of a caribou, and the Micmac hung an oblong piece of hard wood, suspended by a thong around the neck, under their rawhide war jackets as a breastplate.” (93)

- Inuit armor was “made of three rows of walrus [overlapping] ivory plates [lashed with rawhide].” (153–154)

- “The Kagamil caves…produced a thick whalebone breastplate.” (154–155)

Pacific Northwest

- Captain Cook described Tlingit armor: “They make a breast plate of wood, and an arrow proof coat of thin flexible strips bound with strings like a woman’s stays.” (Cook, quoted in Hough, 1895, 637; cited in Jones, 108)

- Tomas de Suria described Tlingit warriors as wearing “all their arms, a breast plate [of wood]…the breast and back armor are of a kind of coat of mail of board two fingers thick.” (108)

- Tlingit armor was so effective that, after the introduction of firearms, they simply added another layer of leather over the armor so that musket balls would not penetrate. (108, 111)

- “We bought some of [their armor] which look like the breast doublets in Spain but are very thick.” (114)

Southeast

- Swanton documented wooden breastplates and wicker armor among the Algonquins of Carolina, while the Cherokee used buffalo-hide breastplates. (137)

- “The circular breastplate (a plate 8–10 inches across) can also be viewed as armor…the gorgets, [throat armor], were made of wood, shell, and slate…the gorget as breastplate relative to a full cuirass is typical when a piece of armor has over time become stylized and symbolic.” (137–138)

- “When the French soldiers prepared to attack the Chickasaw fort at Ackia they donned wooden breastplates as protection against the Chickasaw arrows they expected to face.” 139)

So what?

        After surveying North American tribes nonmetallic breastplates included rods, leather, bark, wood, antlers, shells, ivory, and various animal bones. This is similar to William Hamblin's note that Mesoamerican people also used wood, bone, shell, jade, and other stones for breastplates. As with gorgets, some of these objects may have been ceremonial, though ceremonial and functional uses were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

        These European observations post-date the Book of Mormon era. However, the standard critique that metal armor was unlikely in this time frame would only make nonmetallic armor more likely and the functional standard long before European contact.[2]

        Given the use of nonmetallic protective armor in Indigenous American warfare, the absence of archaeological evidence for metal breastplates does not present a strong objection to the text. Further investigation of nonmetallic armor may yield additional insights, just as the thick Aztec cotton armor offers a potential parallel to the thick cloth armor of Captain Moroni’s army (Alma 43:19). More importantly, these examples demonstrate that assessments of Book of Mormon material culture must account for the full range of historically documented technologies rather than assume that references to armor necessarily imply European-style metal equipment.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you want more ad free, high quality thoughts please donate using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. I'm also creative, feel free to buy my cyber punk thriller. 

---

[1] Although rod or slat armor is functionally similar, treating these forms of armor as reasonably interchangeable with breastplates would invite accusations of mental gymnastics, despite the soundness of the reasoning.

[2] One exception is the southeastern tribes, which abandoned their breastplates shortly before European contact, apparently in response to the increasing use of armor-piercing bone arrowheads, as Jones argues. This pattern of abandoning armor in response to strong, penetrating weapons has a later parallel in Indigenous responses to European gunpowder weapons, which rendered traditional armor less effective. The notable exception was the Pacific Northwest, where Indigenous peoples continued to use impressive wooden armor, even adapting it to withstand firearms.

 

Holy Subversive Warfare

      

        I had a great post that I think would make a great journal article. Please read this Chatgpt summary of what I have thus far. 

        The central argument is that the Bible and Book of Mormon contain a recurring concept of “holy subversive warfare,” in which righteous actors sometimes use methods that would normally be considered dishonorable or immoral, including deception, infiltration, ambush, and assassination. Rather than judging these actions simply by whether they conform to conventional warfare, their morality depends on the actor, authority, purpose, target, circumstances, methods, and consequences.

        The central image is Jesus as the “Robber Messiah.” In Mark 3:27, Jesus describes his victory over Satan as entering the Strong Man's house, binding him, and taking his possessions. The unusual metaphor portrays Jesus not as a conventional soldier but as an infiltrating outlaw who invades Satan's domain and liberates those held by him. This connects with the temple being called a “den of thieves” and the Book of Mormon's portrayal of the Gadianton Robbers as agents of Satan.

        The biblical examples then develop this pattern. The story of John the Baptist's execution connects to Jesus' own death and victory over death, while Herodias is contrasted with Esther, Judith, and Jael. Judith and Jael use deception and stealth to kill powerful enemies, while Esther uses her influence to save her people. Together, these stories present subversive action as something that can serve either wicked or righteous purposes.

        The Book of Mormon provides another series of examples. Nephi kills the drunken Laban and obtains the brass plates through stealth; Gideon's secret passage involves drunken guards; Teancum infiltrates the tents of Amalickiah and Ammoron at night; Moroni uses ambushes, infiltration, and nighttime operations to liberate prisoners; and the unnamed servant of Helaman infiltrates the Gadianton Robbers and stops an assassin. These actions occur outside normal battlefield conventions, yet they are generally presented as serving righteous purposes rather than being inherently immoral.

        Augustine and Aquinas provide a Christian ethical framework for understanding these examples. Augustine argued that a just war could legitimately be conducted through ambush, while Aquinas argued that military plans could appropriately be concealed from an enemy. This creates a distinction between treachery and legitimate concealment or subterfuge.

        Classical Chinese thought provides a parallel tension. Confucian thinkers often associated virtue with openness and condemned treachery, while Sunzi treated deception as fundamental to warfare. Xunzi connected military strength to the moral and political order created by a righteous ruler. Deception could therefore be reconciled with morality when it served legitimate political purposes, particularly when it avoided the greater destruction of prolonged warfare. Mencius likewise emphasized that military strength alone could not preserve a state lacking moral order.

        The broader conclusion is that subversive warfare cannot be judged simply according to whether its methods are conventional or unconventional. Deception, ambush, or assassination is not automatically righteous because it is effective, but neither is it automatically unrighteous because it is deceptive or unconventional. The relevant questions concern intent, authority, target, method, circumstances, and likely consequences. This framework can also be applied to modern questions involving espionage, targeted attacks, and preemption.

        The final image returns to the distinction between the conventional warrior and the robber. The warrior wins on the battlefield, but the robber enters the house at night. The ultimate example is Christ, whose apparent surrender to death becomes the means by which death itself is defeated. The Robber Messiah therefore represents a broader conception of righteous power that does not always operate through conventional strength or conventional rules.

Thanks for reading! If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. I write fiction too! 

The Outlaw Messiah: Jesus, Violence, and the Strong Man

 

Chatgpt 2026, "Parable of the Strongman" 

        For the longest time Mark seemed like a shorter version of Luke or Matthew with less back story, polish, and interest. Jesus enters with no backstory, and Mark repeatedly uses the word immediately. His miracles often produce fear, and he commands the recipients of those miracles to secrecy. The apostles frequently misunderstand and then deny and abandon Him. The story ends abruptly with no dramatic reveal of Christ’s resurrection but only a mysterious promise.[1]

        But then I read a book, picked up for several dollars at a gas station thrift library, called The Bible as Literature. It provided a new lens that turned what had seemed incomplete and frustrating, suddenly became one of the most interesting Gospels. The speed, secrecy, fear, misunderstanding, and abrupt ending all contribute to the same portrait of Jesus as something almost too powerful and strange for the people around him to comprehend.

        For example, one thing I had never noticed, is that while defending His authority to cast out demons, Jesus compares Himself to a robber who enters a strong man's house, binds him, and plunders his possessions. Mark 3:22-27:

²² And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebul, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

²³ And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

²⁴ And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

²⁵ And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

²⁶ And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

²⁷ No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

        The salient part is the image itself. Jesus described someone entering a house, overpowering its ruler, binding him, and taking his goods. There may even be a wordplay here involving Beelzebul and the “house,”[2] which makes the passage even more interesting.

        Jesus is saying that he isn't casting out demons by the devil's power. He is overpowering the devil with His own power. Like a robber, he is invading the strong man's domain and taking back what belongs to him. The “goods” are, figuratively, the people whom Jesus is liberating from demonic power.

        This makes it rather striking regarding the theology surrounding the use of force. Jesus doesn't describe his victory over Satan as a process of peace building dialogue. He described it as an invasion, the binding of an enemy, and the seizure of his possessions. But his invasion did not produce the political revolution or military victory associated with traditional concepts of the Jewish Messiah, nor did it fit the traditional definition of “gospel” as the good news of a military victory.

        While Jesus rejected those traditional concepts, he did not reject the righteous use of personal force. If Jesus wanted that, He likely would have referenced a far more conciliatory option than home invasion, binding, and seizing. Moreover, the fact that Jesus compared himself to a robber rather than a soldier suggests something socially subversive about His assault on the devil’s kingdom. It it was simply about violence he could have described himself as a soldier. But perhaps there was a bit of Markan irony in describing his mission in subversive terms. And it could have described some of his subversive tactics like healing or dining with publicans and lebers. It was also a way for him to say that His mission was more important than societal rules and cleanliness rituals of the Law of Moses. 

        The use of robber is especially striking considering he called the temple a “den of thieves”, or “robbers” in some translations (Mark 11:17). And the Book of Mormon depicts Gadianton Robbers as founded by Satan (Helaman 6:26-27; Ether 8:15-16, 25). Jesus uses this parable to proclaim that He is beating the devil at his own game by adopting the role of the outlaw instead of noble king or soldier, particularly during the cleansing of the temple when He is the socially disreputable figure who uses force and transgressive means to accomplish his ends.

        In Just War terms, this might initially seem to undermine the concept of Just Authority. That authority is what distinguishes legitimate force from banditry. Yet Jesus deliberately uses the imagery of a robber to describe his assault on the devil’s kingdom, operating outside any earthly state authority. The tension is resolved by the fact that Jesus Himself is the divine authority that ultimately grounds legitimate human authority. His use of force against Satan does not eliminate the requirement of Just Authority for human beings or justify banditry. It instead demonstrates that divine authority is not dependent upon earthly political institutions and norms.

        The robber imagery may point to a deeper irony in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus. He subverts expectations of a conventional conquering Messiah, and adopts the role of an outlaw who infiltrates and overthrows his enemy from within. Yet this unconventional Messiah was still subversive enough for Rome to perceive him as a threat and crucify him.

        The Parable of the Strong Man joins a long list of scriptures that suggest the pacifist reading is rather limited and contested at best. When talking to soldiers neither John the Baptist (Luke 3:10-18) nor Jesus commanded soldiers to lay down their arms (Matthew 8:5-13). Jesus praised the centurion for his faith!  Jesus described parables where the master used force to compel servants to enter (Luke 14:23).

        All four gospels describe Jesus using whips to cleanse the temple (Mark 11:15-19). By driving out the money changers, stopping people from using it as a shortcut, and shutting down business, Jesus is binding the strong men (the high priests and elites) who are running an exploitative system. He then "plunders" their authority by teaching the crowds right under their noses and liberates their goods, the exploited poor like the widow (Mark 12:41-44).

        Emblematic of many pacifists, Mason and Pulsipher tried to explain this away as “only” violence against objects and animals. But similar violence in the Book of Mormon was enough for Ammon to maim and kill people.[3] Digging deeper, the key to understanding Jesus’ use of force is to realize that he disrupted temple sacrifices that were supposed to mediate sin and replaced them shortly thereafter with the great and lasting sacrifice of Jesus’ Atonement. So, force at the temple wasn’t an unfortunate and isolated incident to explain away. But one more action central to His mission because it pointed to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It was subversive like a robber, but Mark then used irony to point out how Jesus’ subversive behavior countered and would eventually atone for their subversive sins.

        Moreover, the Markan account of the temple cleansing is sandwiched by another use of force when Jesus smote a fig tree for only appearing to be fruitful (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). This wasn’t a capricious act of violence by Jesus or random fragment of an ancient text, but His use of force created a powerful teaching moment about the appearance of righteousness among the people of Israel that masked their deep sins and wholly corrupt society that had a veneer of righteousness centered in the temple.[4]

        Jesus said that he didn’t bring peace but brought the sword (Matthew 10:34), and in another instance, fire and division (Luke 12:49). When struck, Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23).

        A broader look at the New Testament continues this pattern. Paul says the rulers are appointed by God as “agents of his wrath to the wrong doer” (Romans 13:4). And Jesus promises in revelation that he will kill so many people that the blood will flow like a wine press for 200 miles (Rev 14:20).

        We can comfortably add Jesus’ parable of the strong man in Mark 3:22-27 to this list. He could have described his victory over Satan as reconciliation or persuasion. In this case Jesus didn’t use an example of nonviolence or assertive love. Instead, he describes himself as a robber who entered the strong man's house, overpowered him, bound him, and liberated his captives.

        The enigmatic use of a strong man brings me back to the comet analogy. The comet and this parable might be confusing, mystifying, and even upsetting, but they are significant, understandable, and even beautiful after consideration. And that might be the true beauty of the Book of Mark as the apparent incompleteness of Mark is part of the point. The readers, like the disciples, are left trying to figure out exactly who this terrifying, miraculous, misunderstood figure really is and we grow into better people and disciples as we do so.

********
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work, please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or consider purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

I also write fiction! Feel free to check out my cyber punk thriller. 

---

[1] Though Jesus commanded Peter, James, and John not to share the secrets of what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration until after his resurrection (Mark 9:9-10). Because readers have that knowledge, it would argue that Jesus was now resurrected.

[2] Jesus’ wordplay on house might have invoked the word play of Elijah when the latter mocked the Master of the House, Beelzebul, as Lord of Flies, Beelzebub. If this was deliberate by Mark, he is showing how Jesus used word play to invoke the greatest prophet, Elijah (2 Kings 1:3-4).

This is also an example of how dense and subtle Mark is. In a few lines Jesus responded to the Pharisees by sharing a parable with subtle word play that mocked the demon and invoked Elijah. Mark started his account by describing John the Baptist in such a way that invoked Elijah (Mark 1:6; 2 Kings 1:8), which also made the Strong Man parable a thematic touchstone and callback!

[3] Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2021), 161.

[4] The money changers are the traditional targets of Jesus’ wrath, but it goes much deeper. The money they used often had the deified Roman Emperor on it, which made it idolatrous.

The money was likely gained through unethical practices, such as failure to pay taxes owed to a landlord. After committing their crimes, thieves would flee to a den for safety. Hence, they had fled to the temple, giving the appearance of righteousness while really making it a “den of thieves.” Jesus’ statement is likely a reference to Jeremiah 7:11, where the prophet condemned wicked Israelites who felt they could commit all sorts of evil acts but then flee to the temple for safety, as though it were a lucky charm that automatically covered all their sins. And that made the temple a "den of thieves."

Their unethical practices in this case were likely connected to the merchants and elites at the temple because Jesus uses the Parable of the Tenants immediately after his temple cleansing, sandwiched by the cursed fig tree (Mark 12:1-12). There he compared the elites to tenants that didn’t pay rent and beat the servants/prophets of the Landlord/God the Father, before the Landlord/Father sends his beloved son/Jesus, whom the wicked tenants kill.

Many people may have used the courtyard as a shortcut for secular business (Mark 11:16). The Gentiles were supposed to be allowed in the outer courtyard, but they had been displaced by the animal marketplace. This is likely the first reference in Jesus’ statement before calling them a den of thieves: Isaiah 56:7: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Finally, in the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44), the widow gives all her money, two mites or pennies, to support the temple when the temple funds should have been used to support widows like her.

Clearly, like the fig tree that Jesus cursed for only having the appearance of fruit, Israel was rotten to its roots.

 

Atomic Bombings Justified? Examining the even worse alternatives

 

August 6th marks the controversial day in 1945 where America became the only power to use a nuclear bomb. From 1945 to 2005 American approval of the bombings has dropped from 85 to 57 percent. Critics of Hiroshima have long debated whether dropping the bomb was moral yet every realistic alternative would have killed far more people.

The Question Is Not Whether the Bombs Were Horrific

            Using an area effect weapon that didn’t distinguish between civilians and military targets invites condemnation.[1] The lack of military targets in Hiroshima and the dubious effectiveness of the bomb makes some people say this was terrorism.[2]

The Strategic Bombing survey revealed that the trains ran normally a mere two days later.[3] Critics have argued that the bombings were intended not only to force Japanese surrender but also to demonstrate American military capability to the Soviet Union.

Though it should be noted that both cities had important military components. Both cities house important military garrisons as well as critical war industries, and Nagasaki was a foremost military shipping depot, and thus remained valid military targets. Critics also argue that Japanese peace overtures made the bombing unnecessary.

Critics of the bombings often focus on morality in isolation. The real moral question, however, is whether any realistic alternative would have produced fewer deaths.

Did Japan Actually Offer Peace?

            The strongest criticism regards peace overtures from Japanese officials. The Japanese were ready for peace and the argument implied it was only the blood thirsty, American war mongers who kept the war going. Gar Alperovitz later argued that these peace efforts demonstrate the bombing was unnecessary. His interpretation, however, relies on selective evidence.[4] More importantly, this interpretation emphasizes evidence supporting its conclusion while overlooking later events.

            The best evidence against this theory comes after the Japanese emperor’s decision to surrender. After America dropped the bombs and the emperor wanted peace army leaders challenged and almost reversed the decision through a military coup.

Up until the dropping of the second bomb Japanese officials thought a defense of Japan could produce favorable peace terms that at times included conditional surrender, voluntary reduction (but not elimination) of their military, and protections from war crimes tribunals.[5] The peace overtures before the dropping of the bomb were impotent, and dropping the required of unconditional surrender ignores the many other conditions that Japanese officials favored until the second atomic bombing.

            Again, even AFTER America dropped atomic bombs significant factions in Japanese leadership wanted to keep fighting.

Peace was not possible before the bombs were dropped. It took two atomic bombs to convince them, and even then, just barely. American willingness to negotiate before the bombs dropped would have emboldened the Japanese and aggressive army generals to think that more fighting would have secured more concessions. Any idea of peace before dropping the bomb conflicts with the available evidence from Japanese decision making in 1945 and relies on assumptions about what Japanese leaders would have done under different circumstances. 

The Postwar Critics and the Context of Their Opposition

            Some critics rely heavily on statements from military leaders who opposed the bombing after the war. One example comes from Eisenhower who said: [I believe] that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[6]

             Eisenhower's later criticism must be considered within its historical context and ultimately discounted. He commanded the war in Europe and wasn't privy to the intelligence or decision-making in the Pacific. Yet today his opinion is often treated as expert testimony on a campaign he didn't direct.

When he became President Eisenhower’s New Look military relied so heavily on nukes and spooks.[7]  He threatened the use of nuclear weapons during the Taiwan Strait Crises and was so interested in their deployment that he developed tactical nukes.

            The main source of opposition was parochial, interservice rivalries. The bombs were delivered by bombers, and this helped Curtis LeMay argue for the creation of an independent Airforce. In turn, this would take resources and prestige away from the Navy and Army chiefs, who were incredibly territorial, had differing strategies and demands, and wanted the air corps assets divided between them.[8] 

It isn’t surprising to find that admirals would elevate the role of commerce raiding in the defeat of Japan and minimize what they called the “barbaric” “toy” dropped by the budding air corps. Their opposition had little to do with the moral concerns of the time and are especially dissimilar from modern antiwar sentiments. In fact, the admirals and generals used as props against nuclear weapons respectively preferred a blockade of the Japan that would have slowly killed millions, or an invasion that would have also killed millions (see below.)

    The Alternatives Were Not Bloodless

                Japan was unlikely to surrender without either atomic bombing or a catastrophic invasion. The East Asian victims of Japanese aggression are often forgotten in Western centric debates over the war. But the Japanese launched the Ichigo offensive in late 1944 which was comparable in size and scope to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.[9] Nationalist Chinese leader Kiang Chai Shek had seen a great deal of bloodshed but called this period the worst of his entire life. By 1945, an estimated 200,000 Chinese a month were dying. Many more on both sides would have died in fighting on the Japanese homeland. 

            Estimates vary significantly depending on assumptions about Japanese resistance and invasion scenarios. But General Marshall estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (later updated to 1.2 million). Secretary of War Stimson estimated that 400,000 to 800,000 Americans would have died, (including 100,000 prisoners of war that were set to be executed upon invasion), and 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died from an invasion.[10]

If the war only lasted another six months to a year that, the heavy combat and conventional strategic bombing campaign would have resulted in 1.2-2.4 million Chinese deaths. The estimated deaths for all combatants (American, Chinese, Japanese) without dropping the bombs would have been between 6.5 million and 13.4 million. Critics who focus primarily on the immediate destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki often do not account for the enormous human cost of alternative strategies.

Blockade and Starvation as Alternatives

            The U.S. could have blockaded the country. The admirals at the time and later scholars argued that the U.S. had already destroyed much of Japanese shipping and merchant marine by August 1945,[11] and this may have been what Eisenhower meant by already defeating Japan, but then America would have to wait for the country to starve to death.

That would have caused more deaths and in a slower manner, arguably worse than two nuclear bombings. Its effects would have been unevenly felt across the population. With the elites that caused the war suffering far less than the population that fought it. It also would have given the Japanese army in China more time in their genocidal war against China and again, it would have been more deadly for all sides than the two atomic bombs. 

            Any peace offering from the emperor would have likely faced a coup just like the surrender after the atomic bombings. Moreover, starving the population as a tactic is a war crime. The admirals who argued for this arguably unjust and criminal course didn't object to the morality of using the bomb, their objection was simply the result of petty inter service rivalries. Yet their statements are often used as rhetorical props in modern, post hoc debates regarding the morality of using atomic weapons.

            Ending the War Before a Soviet Occupation

            The rapid end of the war also prevented a larger Soviet role in Japan. The first atomic bomb was dropped literally the day after Stalin finalized plans to invade Japan and Stalin invaded a day after the second bombing. The Soviets treated Eastern Europeans to show trials, mass deportations to the gulags, and they stood by while free Poles died in the Battle of Warsaw. It was obviously a benefit to end the war quickly and prevent the negative effects of Communist rule seen in East Germany and Eastern Europe even today. 

            The Least Harmful Choice Available

            Ending the war for mere hundreds of thousands of lives lost compared to the abject blood bath and tens of millions of deaths is why some allied leaders considered this weapon a godsend. Even though Michael Walzer opposed nuclear weapons, he also said that ending a war swiftly with a minimum of causalities is the greatest kindness a leader could offer.[12]

Secretary of State Henry Stimson exemplified the latter idea when he said: My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man, in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.[13]

            Every other option was worse than using atomic weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons are horrific. It sounds authoritative to declare their use immoral, and I’ve seen people sarcastically assert that Jesus would nuke people. But nuclear weapons were not used in a vacuum. They were used against a horribly aggressive regime, and they prevented alternatives that would have killed millions more. The argument about a regrettable use of a shocking weapon to quickly end the war is not as catchy as the sarcastic claim that “Jesus nukes people,” but it reflects the moral reasoning used by Allied leaders who believed it was the least harmful option available.

            Any evaluation of the atomic bombings must account for both the destruction they caused and the alternatives available during the final months of World War II. Many of the Japanese and Chinese people today are descendants of those that didn't die because of the millions of deaths the bombs obviated. And all of those people have lived, loved, laughed, hugged, and created beautiful works of art because the war ended without a horrific bloodbath. 

            Americans and members of the church must rightly hope to avoid the tragedy of ever having any conflict. But Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the genocidal campaign of Hamas sadly remind us that the specter of war can never be vanquished with hopeful thoughts. Americans can recognize that war, particularly defending life against the most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, was necessary, and the atomic bombings were a necessary and justified choice in World War II.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. If you're attacking me somewhere online about this post, please use the code word: war plan orange, to let me know you've actually read my argument.

*********

---

[1] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (New York, Basic Books, 2015), 250-260.

[2] Howard Zinn, “Breaking the Silence.” ND. (https://web.archive.org/web/20071201172331/http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html Accessed August 6th, 2021.)

[3]  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report: 24. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effect of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6. https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks

[4] Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Vintage Books: 2010). https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

[5] Richard Frank. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, (Random House, 2001), 97.

[6] Julian Borger, “Hiroshima at 75: Bitter Row Persists Over US Decision to Drop the Bomb, The Guardian, August 5th, 2020, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/04/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-us-japan-history (Accessed August 6th 2021.)

[7] Gordon H. Change, He Di, “Eisenhower’s Reckless Nuclear Gamble over the Taiwan Strait,” American Historical Review 98 (December 1993), 1502-1523.

[8] Keith McFarland, "The 1949 Revolt of the Admirals" Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College Quarterly. XI (2): 53–63.

[9] Morgan Deane, Decisive Battles in Chinese History, (Westholme Press, 2017), chapter 12.

[10] Frank, Downfall, 340.

[11] Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report, 11.

[12] Michael Walzer, Just Wars, quoting Moltke the Elder, 47.

[13] Henry L. Stimson, as quoted in The Great Decision: The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1959) by Michael Amrine, p. 197.