Sixty-six years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, and controversy continues to swirl over the decision to obliterate the two Japanese cities -- and, this year, how this helped make inevitable the coming of nuclear power plants, like at Fukushima, introducing new radiation dangers to the world.
Hiroshima, in any case, remains a vital lesson for us all, not only for the first use of a nuclear weapon there, but because of the "first use" nuclear policy the U.S. maintains today.
Even the fact that the U.S. still has a first-strike policy (meaning we will use nukes first in a crisis if need be) will surprise many, especially with the end of the Cold War now a distant memory for some
It's a subject practically off-limits in the media and in American policy circles. Even the recent antinuclear documentary Countdown to Zero, which outlines many serious nuclear dangers (from an accidental launch to a terror attack on America), fails to even mention the possibility that the U.S. might choose to use nuclear weapons again. Resisting a no-first-use policy, in fact, has been a cornerstone of U.S. nuclear policy for decades.
Yet despite some positive signs from Obama, I fear that moving very far in the direction of no-first-use is still a long way off in America.
Perhaps the strongest reason is this: most Americans, our media and our leaders (including every president), have endorsed our "first-use" of the bomb against Japan. This remains true today, despite new evidence and analysis that has emerged for so many years. I've been probing this for almost thirty years -- in articles, a film, in a book -- with little shift in the polls or change in heart among our policymakers and elected officials.
There has also been little change abroad -- where the use of the bomb in 1945 has been roundly condemned from the beginning. Indeed, U.S. support, even pride, in our use of the weapon has given us little moral standing in arguing that other countries should not develop nuclear weapons and consider using them, possibly as a first, not a last, resort (that's our policy, remember).
So it all goes back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as I make clear in my new bookAtomic Cover-Up.
While I respect the views of a range of historians on this matter, and the opinions of the men who fought in the Pacific, I happen to believe the bombs should not have been used against Japan -- directly over massive cities -- at that time. The war would likely have ended very shortly without it (or a bloody American invasion planned for months later), largely because of the Soviets finally declaring war on Japan -- an event long-dreaded by Japanese leaders.
Yes, there was a day when conservatives like John Foster Dulles, columnist David Lawrence, Admiral William Leahy and General Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "We shouldn't have hit them with that awful thing," Ike declared -- clearly condemned the use of the bombs. They knew that the argument of "saving tens of thousands of American lives" only counted if an invasion actually was necessary. We had demanded "unconditional surrender," dropped the bombs -- then accepted the main Japanese demand, keeping their emperor as figurehead.
But the key point for today is this: how the "Hiroshima narrative" has been handed down to generations of Americans -- and overwhelmingly endorsed by officials and the media, even if many historians disagree -- matters greatly. (And seemy new book on the extremely significant suppression of footage shot in Hiroshima by U.S. military film crews.)
Over and over, top policymakers and commentators say, "We must never use nuclear weapons," yet they endorse the two times the weapons have been used against cities in a first strike. To make any exceptions, even in the past -- and in certainly a horrid situation -- means exceptions can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two exceptions, with more than 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using nuclear weapons has been drawn... in the sand.
To cite just one example: Before our attack on Iraqi forces in Kuwait in 1990, then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney said on TV that we would consider using nuclear weapons against Iraq but would hold off "at this point" -- then specifically cited President Truman's use of the bomb as morally correct. Some polls at the time showed strong support from the American public for using nukes if our military so advised. And who can forget Hillary Clinton's claim, during her run for president, that we might have to "obliterate" Iran.
And, as I've noted, the fact that the United States first developed, and then used -- twice -- the WMD to end all WMDs has severely compromised our arguments against others building the weapon ever since. Hiroshima was our original sin, and we are still paying for it, even if most Americans do not recognize this.
That is why I always urge everyone to study the history surrounding the decision to use the bomb and how the full story was covered up for decades. There is certainly, in the minds of the media and the American public, no taboo on using nuclear weapons, and it all started, but did not end, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is what nuclear abolitionists -- or even those who (like Obama) simply want a partial easing of our first-use policy -- are up against.
Greg Mitchell's new book is "Atomic Cover-Up: Two U.S. Soldiers, Hiroshima & Nagasaki and The Greatest Movie Never Made. He writes daily for The Nation. One of his previous books, co-authored by Robert Jay Lifton, was "Hiroshima in America."
Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch
A few things that stand out in abutment to this article are the idea that we used these weapons to end future weapons of it's like. Not so. We used them to end a conflict without sacrificing millions more casualties on either side. We wanted them to give up. Other countries have developed WMD and would have regardless of what we did. History shows this time and time again. As far as the act of using the atomic bomb as being immoral... it is no different than any other weapon and man has shown no remorse for it's infatuation with using them. To call it a sin is simply ignoring what we are.
Excuse me but Pearl Harbor was the first strike.
I feel the use of that term is a bit problematic, though, since first strike implies that someone else could have made the first strike instead -- and, in 1945, that wasn't true.
That is EXACTLY the main reason the US used the atomic bombs on Japan. If Russia became involved all or part of Japan could have/would have been under Russian influence/control, instead of US influence/control.
7/18/45 Truman Letter to Bess Truman:
"...I've gotten what I came for - Stalin goes to war [against Japan] August 15 with no strings on it. He wanted a Chinese settlement [in return for entering the Pacific war, China would give Russia some land and other concessions] - and it is practically made - in a better form than I expected.
- Robert Ferrell, ed., Dear Bess: The Letters from Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959
1/5/46 Unsent letter to Sec. of State James Byrnes; the excerpt from this letter refers to Truman's feelings at the July 1945 Potsdam Conference about having Russia enter the Pacific war:
"At the time we were anxious for Russian entry into the Japanese War. Of course we found later that we didn't need Russia there and the Russians have been a head ache to us ever since."
The US has alos been known to change its mind, after discussion.
That also may have given us the perfect excuse to use the bombs.
Sure, it is open to debate, but their is plenty on the side to support the conclusion that when Russia started against Japan it pushed the US to end the war faster (atomic bombs) and retain it's position of influence.