Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Twice, Truman offered to let Japan surrender before A-bombs fell

To The Daliy Sun,

I read the letter submitted by Ms. Rudmin Chong, and the one sent in by Mr. King. In short, Ms. Rudmin Chong and her associates are memorializing the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan. Mr. King advocated for remembering the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Aside from the destructive power differences between the two attacks, the one truly significant difference is . . . that Japan engaged in a "sneak attack" but the United States didn't.

Here's the rest of the story:

When President Truman took over after President Roosevelt died, he did not know of the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb. As president, he was made aware of it, and its devastating destructive potential. When our military leaders asked to drop the bomb(s) on Japan, Truman asked them what would be the approximate casualty count if we didn't drop the bomb but had a normal naval bombardment followed by a land invasion. Because of Japan's unwillingness to ever be captured, the generals advised the president that up to 10 million Japanese would die from a ground invasion, as would up to 1 million of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines. Truman then asked the neutral Swiss to meet with the Japanese and advise them that we had the atomic bomb, and we wouldn't use it if they surrendered. The Japanese refused to surrender.

After weighing the potential loss of up to 11 million lives and the continuation of the war, Truman decided to drop the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It was devastating. Truman again sent the Swiss to offer Japan a second chance to surrender. They again refused, thinking we only had one bomb. The president then ordered the second bomb to the dropped on Nagasaki. The Japanese then agreed to an unconditional surrender.

The point being made is that Japan had been given fair warning twice of what we planned to do and twice they refused to surrender. Japan, on the other hand, did not give any previous warning or declaration of war before they bombed Pearl Harbor.

President Truman made one of the most difficult decisions ever put before a Commander in Chief. He made the right decision and saved millions of lives. For 70 years, nuclear power has assured what has been called Mutually Assured Destruction — MAD. Because nuclear powers knew of the retaliatory measures that awaited them if they struck first, they chose a cold war instead. Nations keeping their atomic weapons holstered was before ... but that common sense may no longer be. I have no doubt that multiple nations in the Middle East, fearing the dominance of Iran in its religious quest to facilitate the end times, are already in search of nuclear power.

And, for those whose lives post-date Dec. 7, 1941, here are the words to a song that was sung all across the United States: "Let's remember Pearl Harbor, As we go to meet the foe. Let's remember Pearl Harbor, As we did the Alamo, We will always remember how they died for Liberty. Let's remember Pearl Harbor, and go on to victory."

Bob Meade


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 703

Remaining selectmen need to do right thing and agree on a third

To The Daily Sun,

The voters of Gilmanton are expecting their two selectmen to do the right thing in appointing a third selectman.

It is time to set aside personal opinions, personal agendas, and personalities in making a decision to move forward with the town's business. The town could get by with just two selectmen, but getting by is not good enough.

With only two selectmen, what would happen if only one was able to attend a session especially with budget season approaching? Moving forward requires consensus and that requires a selectman who can break tie votes.

It is unfortunate that there has not been a meeting allowing public input on this topic. There is no agenda for the Aug. 11 meeting that indicates that there will even be any discussion or action to resolve the situation.

Please visit, call, write, or email your town administrator and your current selectmen and tell them your wishes and emphasize that they are committed to do the best for the town's needs.

Joanne Gianni
Gilmanton Iron Works

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 477