Following the excellent column by John Rash on Hiroshima (July 31) were a number of letters (Aug. 3) repeating the tropes we all learned in school about how dropping two different types of atomic bombs within three days on civilians was necessary. Americans need to realize that suffering from nuclear weapons is far worse than the deaths on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945. The first victims of nuclear weapons were pregnancies and babies surrounding the U.S. testing sites. Since then, women and girls have continued to suffer disproportionately.

Options other than invasion existed to get an island nation to surrender. Since we unleashed the evil, however, cancers, thyroid issues, anxiety of imminent destruction and the huge "warning" security apparatus have and continue to plague civilians around the world as we've flirted with omnicide. Remember how the nuclear weapon was even the excuse for invading Iraq.

We need whistleblowers to tell the truth about the many ways in which every aspect of nuclear bomb production has created sacrifice zones across our country. So much about nuclear weapons has damaged our planet — from constant high-altitude flights ready to annihilate cities to leaking abandoned nuclear subs in the Arctic. The mind cannot grasp the significance of creating something like nuclear waste that will continue to harm indiscriminately for 240,000 years. What could possibly justify one generation doing that for all future generations?

Now the U.S. is prompting an arms race by rebuilding our nuclear arsenal at great expense in money ($2 trillion), opportunity costs, risk and probable pollution. Yet most of the world has signed the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons. We need to join the shift from warheads to windmills to address our real global needs.

Amy Blumenshine, Minneapolis

•••

In the first week of August every year the Star Tribune publishes letters to the editor about the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Usually those letters, including the three that appeared on Tuesday, claim that the nuclear assault on Japan ended the war in the Pacific. This rewrite of history asserts that the destruction of those cities rendered the invasion of the Japanese homeland unnecessary, thus sparing the lives of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers and civilians.

Even if that was the logic driving the choice to use nuclear weapons, killing at least 200,000 noncombatants constitutes a war crime, as it was an indiscriminate attack on civilians.

During the summer of 1945, Japan had been seeking a face-saving way to end the war. The air war against the people, housing resources and industrial capacity with incendiary weapons had greatly reduced the country's ability to continue fighting. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed to hasten the end of the war. They were bombed to send a message to Russia. President Harry S. Truman was saying, "Behold, Russia, the power of the USA to destroy its enemies."

Little value is served assessing blame, but getting the facts straight and understanding our own history is critical to the health and integrity of American culture. Truth matters.

Chris Sullivan, Minnetonka

Proponents of the government structure amendment that would consolidate executive power in a strong-mayor system of city government in Minneapolis argue that it would create "efficiency." Efficiency is a worthy value, but often comes into conflict with other values, such as balancing the interests and needs of different neighborhoods and communities.

Elected at large, the mayor may well represent the interests of a majority of voters, but council members elected by ward may give better voice to the interests of residents in their wards. For example, the decision in the 1950s to put the Interstate 94 corridor through poor minority neighborhoods may have looked efficient to residents citywide in St. Paul, but it was not very efficient for the well-being of residents of the Rondo neighborhood there. Contrast that with the decision to bury sections of the Southwest light-rail line in response to interests of wealthier neighborhoods of Minneapolis at the expense of taxpayers across the metro area — not a very efficient plan, but one that was responsive to local interests. The fact that the Metropolitan Council had to get support of local governments in the region gave voice to this neighborhood.

The proposed structural reform amendment is not just about efficiency, it is about who exercises power over city policy.

Stephen A. Snyder, Minneapolis

People say they support individual liberty and balk at government imposing restrictions on such liberty. But let's examine what would happen if government did not step in to limit such freedoms. Every federal or state statute, every city ordinance, and every government rule and regulation restricts somebody's freedom — for the greater good. If we really believed in unfettered liberty, we would oppose laws prohibiting drunken driving, illicit drug dealing, vandalism, burglary and assault.

I am overjoyed that our society of laws does not permit me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You see, one person's liberty infringes on another's freedom without their consent. Thus, the mandate to wear masks and, in some cases, mandate vaccines does indeed impose a restriction on a person's right to make decisions — in favor of protecting others against a disease without their consent. I read that some individuals were willing to take a chance to get COVID and that was their choice. However, an infectious disease is different than, say, diabetes, which is not communicable. If that person got COVID, he or she could spread it to others without their consent. Thus there is no more appropriate function of government than to manage COVID as such viruses impact public health.

Jill Schwimmer, Minneapolis

A recent letter from an attendee at a National Night Out block party cited a "tacit admission" by a Plymouth police officer that criminals are on the loose, and police are powerless, because of the "judicial system's practice of releasing the accused without any strong consequences." If this takeaway was shared by other attendees, then the officer's litany of safety tips simply reinforced the message: "We can't protect you, so you'd best protect yourselves." Private security services and gun manufacturers will thus be served as citizens conclude that the police can neither serve — nor protect.

Roger B. Day, Duluth

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.