North Korea's Bomb -- and the "Original Sin" of Hiroshima

Many of the headlines greeting North Korea's nuclear blast yesterday carried the phrase "as big as the Hiroshima bomb" or words to that effect. But that's not the only reference point that Hiroshima should evoke.

Simply stated: The fact that the U.S. first developed, and then used - twice - the WMD to end all WMDs against heavily-populated cities, killing a quarter of a million civilians (and very few soldiers), has severely compromised our arguments against others building the weapon ever since.

Americans may not like to hear that but it happens to be true - as any review of statements from leaders abroad and media there shows, even in the many countries that have never had any interest in building such a bomb. Our view of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) and the common world view is 180 degrees different.

In a nutshell, Hiroshima was our original sin.

Yes, the debate over whether the bombs should have been dropped continues to rage, with valid points on both sides. Believe me, I know and respect most of them. But the world doesn't see it that balanced. They see us continually demanding that others not build, or stop building, nuclear weapons when we have actually used them. And then (like the Soviet Union) built tens of thousands more warheads. And maintained a "first use" policy against others. And defended the idea of dropping these WMDs on two cities.

I wrote a book in 1995 with the great Robert Jay Lifton called Hiroshima in America which probed American reactions (political, cultural, psychological) to the atomic bombings since 1945. We happen to believe that the bombs should not have been used in August, 1945, as even conservatives like John Foster Dulles and David Lawrence, and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, argued at the time. Besides the mass killing it produced, it also set a precedent for use of the bomb again by us, or anyone else arguing it was needed to try to end an war or "save lives."

But put that aside. I'm not saying that there is nothing scary about North Korea or Iran (or anyone else) getting the bomb. I'm just pointing out that it is almost impossible for us to work our will on this abroad given our, ahem...track record.

And that's the true meaning of the "Hiroshima" you see in the headlines.

Greg Mitchell's latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher and his Twitter feed is @GregMitch.

Comments

[Dolmance]

My father was slated to take part in the invasion of Japan, which by all accounts would have caused more than a million American casualties before it was successful. And if that had been the case, my father would most likely have died and both my children and myself would never have been born.

The conventional bombing raids conducted by the US against Japanese city after city routinely killed tens of thousands of civilians. Some of those raids killed more civilians than either bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the US hadn't dropped those nuclear weapons, more civilians would have died during the invasion than would have otherwise occurred.

The nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki took a lot of lives. But they saved even more lives. And nuclear weapons assured we didn't end up in a war pitting the US and it's Western Allies against Russia, China and the entire communist world, which would have killed up to a billion people.

I think that given the destructive power of conventional weapons since the end of WWII, nuclear weapons have kept us from one or more global wars that this time around might have killed billions.

[marley22]

Gee, I'm so glad he acknowledges that it is 'scary about North Korea or Iran (or anyone else) getting the bomb'. That's the whole flipping point! Self-flagellating over what happened 64 years ago does no good whatsoever today. The rest of the world should feel lucky we were first. Most of the other countries working on the bomb probably would have used more than two. Remember that dunderhead MacArthur wanted to use them in North Korea. Our nation had the restraint even then to not allow that.

[Ishmael1]

As a guy who actually both worked on nuclear weapons AND walked the streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll offer my perspective.

I agree that the Mark of Cain is upon this nation due to our first use of nuclear weapons. I also believe their use ultimately saved US AND Japanese lives as well as protecting the territorial integrity of the Japanese Home Islands. Don't forget that Stalin was poised to invade Hokkaido on April 15, the day Japan announced it's surrender. Would anyone really want to see a divided Japan in the same manner as Korea still is now?

So the question becomes, what do we do now? I feel the only thing the US can do to atone is to consistently work for total nuclear disarmament. This means being the final repository for all nuclear weapons material and negotiating deep cuts in our arsenals as well as the arsenals of the 5 permanent Security Council members as a confidence building measure to get the other nuclear armed nations, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to relenquish their arsenals as well.

[emmacop]

Atone? Original sin? Bible Thumpers at the HuffPuff?

Perhaps you should re-read the Ten Commandments once again.


55 million abortions in the US since Roe vs. Wade. That's 550 Hiroshimas for you to feel guilty about someday soon.

[Berettasskeeter]

What claptrap. Critics of the U.S. always like to use the bombings of Japan as proof that the U.S. has no credibility on this issue, wrongly. Japan had a huge army in Manchuria and China, waiting to be ferried back to the Home Islands. What they lacked was shipping and sufficient airpower. But they still owned the Sea of Japan. Could they have gotten their army back to the Home Islands, an invasion could have been a bloodbath, for both sides. Neither waiting nor more conventional means were an option. But the critics don't wish to hear this, do they?!
Semper fi

[stanblack]

Woah. The author acquiesced to your point of hearing and respecting most differing opinions on the subject: "Yes, the debate over whether the bombs should have been dropped continues to rage, with valid points on both sides. Believe me, I know and respect most of them." But, the readers don't want to read this, do they? Relax, it's just an article.

[paligap]

Many of the responses to this column illustrate exactly why much of the world views us with contempt. One can certainly make an argument that dropping the bombs shortened the war and ultimately saved lives, but to not, in the same breath, acknowledge the terrible nature of our actions, reveals a lack of humanity. To blithely claim that, yes, we dropped them, and we still have the right to lecture other nations about acquiring them, reveals a monumental hypocrisy.

[wndrwrthg]

Perhaps the world would have preferred Germany or Japan (yes Japan had a bomb program going) to be the ones to drop it? We have nothing to be ashamed of, and yes, we can lecture others on the dangers of nukes without having to hang our heads.

[RoseMerry]

For 64 years the arguments have been going back and forth - but to continue that debate is missing the point of this great column. It is how the rest of the World sees us in our hubis and eltism, sitting on the 2nd largest (and probably most technically advance) stockpile of thousands and thousand of bombs that have a Himoshima style bomb as the trigger for a bigger bang.

We have as much duty to disarm as North Korea and we have much longer to good.

[elmerfude]

How convenient to revise history. The context of WWII was millions of dead, the world's economy in shambles, the prospect of having to invade Japan with hundreds of thousands of American dead not to mention all the Japanese who would die. Conventional bombing was already unprecedented in its destructive power (Dresden). Truman made a decision to use the bombs and never looked back. Ask any veteran or adult from WWII and most will tell you it was the right decision.

[wonder6789]

How can slaughtering hundreds thousands of innocents ever be "the right decision"???

Would you agree if you and your loved ones were to be among the slaughtered???

[GLaB]

Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet - the two part planned invasion of Japan to end the war - were estimated to involve 250,000 to 4,000,000 U.S. casualties plus five to ten times as many Japanese.

Would that have better?

[elmerfude]

If the Japanese or Germans had developed the bomb, they would not have hesitated to use them. You would be speaking Japanese. I was growing up during WWII and believe you me the adults all knew we were in a fight for survival. They would not have tolerated not using a weapon that could have ended it quickly. Your position is naive.

[Frank Smith]

"it is almost impossible for us to work our will on this abroad given our, ahem...tra­ck record."

I don't believe that at all. Countries are going to do what they want regardless of what happened almost 65 years ago. If a country that can't make a cup of coffee, metaphorically speaking, but can make an atomic weapon decides that's where its' priorities are, that decision is going to stick. North Korea doesn't have anything else and knows it.

[Openeyes]

Sorry, that's a totally bogus argument.

That's like saying the Germans can't discuss democracy or the rule of law because their country was run by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s.

Continuing to build nuclear weapons while telling others not to is a valid criticism.

However, saying our arguments against the use of nuclear weapons have no merit because of Hiroshima is just nonsense.

[RJMac]

The atomic bomb is an equalizer for less powerful nations. My question is what we would do if one was set off on our land or some other one. Would we annihilate that country with nuclear bombs? The Japanese didn't retaliate. The became a powerful economic machine and they own a lot of our country too. It was our insanity with the bomb that made this technology available to others. The fact that we have any or would even think of using them no matter what is insane. The fact that we are a country that used them it is poetic justice that we have so many issues in our country. Widespread violence in our cities. A government that is blind to making the moves that would benefit the country the best because we are afraid and not morally ready for the change that needs to be made. It is true karma for what we have done to this world and we have a really difficult time taking responsibility for it. I would appreciate more humbleness in our leadership. Still vioolence is all over our entertainment media. And our prisons get fuller and fuller. we are at a virtual civil war in our country. It never really ended. It just changed its face.

[Semaj51]

The answer to your question is a yes. There is just no other answer.

And the reason that Japan did not retaliate is simple, they were a totally defeated country. Also the basic technology for the atomic bomb was known not just to us but to many others before and during WWII.

[usmcflir]

I do not understand how people can be so ignorant that that cannot see this fact for themselves. Why do they feel that the US is always wrong?

[deminmo]

I just wonder how many countries we can attack, to prevent that country
from obtaining nuclear technology or weapons? This country is still in
trouble at home, we have our resources in two wars, what is more sanctions
are not enough? What then, more war?

[jhNY]

I predict that despite our track record regarding the use of nuclear weapons, we will will keep shouting our point of view at all comers forever, unmindful of our hypocrisy.

[johnie2xs]

There's a one word answer as to why Iran wants the bomb. "Israel"!! The world balance of power being what it is, the Iranians believe it to be there right to protect themselves. Add to that the blind backing of Israel by the US, who could blame them. If we were seen to have even a modicum of influence on Israel's foreign policy, the discussion would be, more workable. Anything short of that is useless. Israel has us by the short and curlies, and the world knows it.

As far a North Korea is concerned, it's just a matter of a madman being in charge. It is by far the more dangerous of the two situations. Embargoes and sanctions, of both financial and humanitarian aid is just spitting in the wind with a madman in charge. It's his power that concerns him, not his people. Isolation and waiting for Kim Jong Il to pass on, is about as much as can be done.

Lastly, Greg's view of our "track record" cannot be overlooked. I,myself, as just a run of the mill citizen have often wondered what affect having dropped a "demonstration bomb" off shore, as at one time had been contemplated, or if instead it had been dropped on a Japanese military complex, the discussion would be much different. Of course that argument is moot. However, to say we are wedded to the past and can not grow beyond it, is to commit all the same mistakes.

[Semaj51]

A little bit of history again, there was very strong desires in the Japanese government to continue the war after the first bomb, so how would a demonstration make them more afraid. And for bombing a military complex - the fats were that those military complexes still existing were all located in or adjacent to major population areas.

Also you have to realize that there were only two bombs, period , in the whole world. And it would be months till other bombs could be prepared.

[johnie2xs]

It was discussed within our government for the use of an off shore demonstration blast, but obviously, since bombing Hiroshima didn't do the trick, an off shore blast probably wouldn't have brought compliance either; I agree. I guess it is just going to be one of those unanswerable conundrums. Despite all the arguments for the dropping of the bombs, the way they were, it still is hurtful to the American psyche, that it happened the way it did. The idea that so many civilians were killed in our name, still hurts.

Just wishing it could have been different, doncha' know.

[Semaj51]

Our, "ahem" track record for WWII seems pretty good. It is always great to have 100% hindsight and Monday quarterbacks are never wrong. Should we have used (or even developed) the atomic bomb in WWII? The answer at THAT time was yes... Faced with the mounting casualities from the invasion of Okninawa and realizing that the invasion of homeland Japan would create casualities magitudes higher, the answer at THAT time was yes...

Of course we can look back sixty years later and say that they should have or should have not done the bombing, but again we lack the knowledge/fears of the participants in 1945. The fire bombings of Tokyo produced greater casualities and damages and there were the 1,000 plane bomber raids in Germany.

But to cut it to the quick, we developed, produced, and used the atomic bomb to end a war in which millions had aready died in. The atomic bomb was built not to continue or start wars but to end wars. Now exactly WHY is Iran and North Korea building their bombs?

[jhNY]

So that the US and Israel cannot threaten them with invasion or conventional attack or nuclear annihilation for fear of nuclear retaliation. Glad I could help sort this out for you!

[Semaj51]

Sorry, but that point doesn't work. The only countries afraid of invasion is not North Korea but South Korea, and they have very strong opinions on that matter. Its not South Korea (or the U.S.) that has built and maintained a hugh army designed not for defense but for offense. ANd its a laugh that iran is afraid of Isreal invading them, a simple look at the map shows that.

The main reason for both Iran and NK to have the bomb is simply to cause fear and to try to act like one the other big kids in the block.

[mtwashingtonmike]

Exactly: We could have easily put 300 B29's over Hiroshima and Nagasaki and burned both cities down, with probably an equal amount of casulties. The Atomoc Bomb got the Japanese leadership attention like little else could. I always laugh at people who 60 years after the fact second guess decisions made at the time. President Truman had only one resposibility. To end the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of American casulties. This was pretty much a guiding principle of the USA throughout the war. Ther was very little secong guessing at the time.

I want these Monday morning quarterbacks to explain their way of thinking to the 100,000 additional gold star Mothers, that would have resulted from any invasion of Japan, not to mention the 1,000,000 allied woulded that probably would have resulted.

Life and death war decisions are made in the present, not 60 years hence. If you want to understand why we dropped the bomb read about the US campaign against Japan in the Pacific with special emphasis on the battles of Manila, Iwo Jima and Okinawa in the first half of 1945.

[elmerfude]

Your perspective is correct. Even after the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese militants were still resisting and end to the war and even attempted a palace coup. Only after the second bomb did the Emperor see the light and end the war.

[FearlessFreep]

In 1945 it was probably unnecessary to use the A-bomb at all to induce Japan's surrender, and it was CERTAINLY unnecessary to use it that soon: the dreaded invasion of Japan was still months away, and the US could have waited into the fall to make sure that the surrender wasn't going to happen. There's a good chance that the Soviet intervention alone would have led to surrender.

Arguments that dismiss criticism of the decision as "hindsight judgement" are exercises in sophistry. What is history if not hindsight judgement?

[mtwashingtonmike]

Waiting? Waiting during an all out war is a luxury. There was no waiting in WWII. Nobody in the USA was interested in waiting. Americans wanted the war over as soon as possible. If you want to study history make a careful study of 1945, especially from the American point of view.

[usmcflir]

Waiting until fall, while August 6th and 9th are not fall they are pretty close. If we had waited longer and not invaded either who knows what would have happened. Maybe Japan would be in the same sorry state that Eastern Europe was left in by the USSR since they were teh ones that went in there first so they were the ones to decide how to set up the governments to rebuild those nations after the war.

[Berettasskeeter]

I invite you to look into the history of Japan during WWII. Where were their forces? How much shipping did they have left and where was it? How much airpower did they have left and where was it? You'll find that, during the time in question, the bulk of their remaining forces were in Japan and China/Manchuria. They had sufficient shipping and airpower, held back, to defeat the invasion they foresaw, and a huge army. Their problems were munitions, but they thought they had sufficient.
If we had given them time, they may have been able to mobilize their China-based forces and done substantially more damage to our forces than foreseen.
Your arguments about time are without merit and wholly un-researched.
Semper fi