Sixty-five 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 -- sparked this time by President Obama's decision to send a U.S. envoy to Hiroshima, for the first time, for the official ceremony today.
Already some on the right are charging that this amounts to an "apology" for using the bomb against Japan. Warren Kozak, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, has attacked the Obama move, equating it with President Reagan going to Bitburg and laying a wreath at graves belonging to SS members. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the 130,000 killed in Hiroshima were civilians, mainly women and children.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said U.S. Ambassador John Roos is merely honoring all of the dead of World War II and expressing the president's endorsement of severe cutbacks in the global nuclear arsenals. No U.S. president has visited Hiroshima while in office.
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.
It's a subject practically off-limits in the media and in American policy circles. Even the current, fine 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.
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 see my piece this week on Truman editing the first Hollywood movie on the bombing, and an earlier piece 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 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 writes the popular Media Fix blog at The Nation, where this first appeared. He is co-author with Robert Jay Lifton of "Hiroshima in America." Email: epic1934@aol.com Twitter: @GregMitch
Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch
But after the US dropped an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan still didn't surrender? The Japanese government only had to go to Hiroshima and see all the horrendous effects and devastation that the bomb had brought. After seeing or hearing reports of the destruction of the Atomic Bomb at Hiroshima why didn’t the Japanese government surrender immediately? No, it took a second Atomic Bomb for them to surrender. Jeez, you would think after the first Atomic Bomb was dropped on them would they would have been running to the table to sign a peace treaty.
So here we are 65 years later and the United States government is being blamed for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan? What about the Japanese dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor and don’t you think for a minute, if they had an Atomic Weapon they wouldn’t drop it on Hawaii. The US should have the option of first use of nuclear weapons because there are a lot of crackpot dictators in the world wanting to kill us. Look at 9/11 and the planes that were used to kill Americans by terroristl if those terrorist had nuclear weapons they would have use them in a New York Minute.
So, let’s keep our nuclear bombs safe & secure in their bunkers but let’s insure they are ready to go if we are threatened by some crazed maniac!
I doubt this is really the case!
"'We must never use nuclear weapons,' yet they endorse the two times the weapons have been used against cities in a first strike."
Although this was the first use of the weapon it hardly qualifies as a "first strike". The "first strike" was at Pearl!
"Hiroshima was our original sin, and we are still paying for it, even if most Americans do not recognize this."
This makes it sound like we started the war? Yes it was a bad thing, war is a bad thing.
"There is certainly, in the minds of the media and the American public, no taboo on using nuclear weapons"
This is totally unsupported.
We will never be anymore ashamed of that than we are of the virtual extermination of the native peoples who occupied this land we call the United States today . We have moved on and so has history . It is a pointless article because even if he were successful as we know he cannot be , The world still faces the same situation . And morality is not something America can exhibit to the world because we are just another nation on this earth pursuing our own interests as nations are bound to do . The previous comments should have made it clear to Mr. Mitchell that his book is to no meaningful end because it is built upon a false premise . That morality is a product of mankind and not of God .
Apologise? The article seems to portay the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as non-illitary targets with residents as pure as the driven snow. Hiroshima was the home of the Imperial War Collage where the Pearl Harbor Attack was planned.and Nagasaki the Naval base from which the Pearl Harbor attack was executed. The Japanese military command was the ONLY party that could end the war. They had formerly demonstrated on Okinawa they were willing to sacrifice every Japanese civilian to preserve their "honor." What we did by NOT blowing away thier sorry souls was give them a ringside demonstration we COULD do so at our leasure and it worked.
PS: Dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not even finish in the top ten attrocitys of WWII. We killed more inocent civilians in the fire bombing of Dresden then both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. THEY have never apologised for Nanking or the murder of over 500,000 Chinese civilians with gas and chemical weapons. THEY have never apolgised for the Battan Death March or ordering the murder of ALL allied prisoners (military and civilian) the day after we invaded the Philipines.
“Does that mean that our enemies are now "legally 100% justified" to use atomic bombs against us since we used them first?"
This above comment made by Greg White is totally divorcing cause from effect. Japan started the Pacific war by the pure greedy imperialistic invasion of China, then after the USA had made numerous very peaceful attempts to get Japan to leave China alone over a period of years, the USA put an embargo on Americans selling the Japanese oil, iron and steel, which they needed for their war effort in China. Then and only then did Japan attack the USA for attempting to use peaceful means to end the Japanese's aggression.
In that aggression the Japanese had already started using chemical and biological warfare on the Chinese. If the USA had made such an act of naked aggression on another people they or other bystanders would be justified in use of any means needed to stop that aggression.
What weapon a nation chooses to use in a just war is irrelevant, the question is whether or not the war is just.
We had to convince them that their country and people would cease to exist . Unlike you ,they were unfased by talk, action was the only thing they understood.
They would not have surrendered ,because of the Russians. based on the facts we had then. We had to drop the bomb.
We would do well to remember history, when dealing with people that have a similar view of life, and use what worked in the past.
The Japanese were given the opportunity to surrender. They failed to do so. They also planned on defending the home islands and had saved enough resources and arms to put up a serious defense. They were also training women and children to fight and even planning to use suicide bombers.
When you look at the defense that they put up in Okinawa it's clear that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been a nightmare for all involved.
The nuclear bombs ended their resistance. It was horrible and hundreds of thousands of people died. It is however likely that over a million would have died if we were forced to invade.
BTW, when we occupied Japan we were not an overly harsh occupying force. We were not cruel or unnecessarily punitive. I wonder how our occupation would have fared if we had lost hundreds of thousands of men invading Japan. Would we have gone on to be the good friends and allies that we are today or would the deaths have turned us into a harsh occupation army and a hated enemy?
I can't believe you just used the classic "abusive-husband" remark: She made me do it.
http://www.life.com/image/2637030/in-gallery/27872/fallout-after-a-nuclear-attack
http://www.secondworldwar.org.uk/downfall.html
My father was a US Marine serving on the island of Guam on the last day of WW2. He was guarding a top secret warehouse with the divisions invasion supplies in it. There were a dozen marines around the sealed up warehouse at all times with shoot to kill orders. Anyone get's near the warehouse is to be shot. These marines were stuck out there while the entire island got drunk. About 2 AM they saw the lights of a jeep coming towards them. The jeep contained the senior officers in the division and there was a Major so drunk that he was draped across the hood with officers in the front seat holding onto him. When they pulled up the got out and proceeded to shake and slap the major awake. They thrust a clip board and keys into his hands. The Major then walked over and secured the guards. The Major walked over and dismissed all the guards. The guards figured that the Major was so drunk that there was no way that they would remember that he had dismissed the guards come morning. The Major walked over and broke the seals and unlocked the door to the warehouse. He entered and was heard breaking open crates in the warehouse. No one would dare to look inside and he finally came out.
Once, when I was much younger, I asked my father why he hated the Japanese. He looked at me with incredulous eyes and said 7 words: "They tried to drop bombs on me." That's good enough.
Not only did the bomb save american lives, but it also saved millions of civilians that would have died in a prolonged campaign to take Japan.
attacks are mostly negative since we chose a civilian target.Once we saw the devistation and destruction that it caused,I believe that dropping the second one on Nagasaki was totally lnexcusable.
The fact that it was also a civilian target makes it absolutly evil,but there are thos6e that think lt is
wrong to even apoiogize
knew what the civilian loss would be,and I repeat I believe killing that many innocent
women and children,knowingly is wrong
Disgusting!!!