More than sixty-four years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, as evidenced by this week's great nuclear summit and new proposals to curtail stockpiles, and loose nukes, presented by President Obama. But the thousands of weapons in the hands of the current or former superpowers, the United States and Russia, draw less controversy in our country than the notion that Obama is either going too far or not far enough in limiting but not banning our possible "first use" of the bomb in any conflict (or responding to a perceived threat). Opposition to 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 have emerged for so many years. I've been writing about this for almost thirty years -- most recently at The Nation and earlier in book form -- 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 cities, at that time. The war would likely have ended very shortly without it (or a bloody American invasion planned for many 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 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.
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 a horrid situation, means exceptions can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two exceptions, with over 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using nuclear weapons has been drawn... in the sand.
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's new blog for The Nation will launch this month--he's now tweeting it here. He is the former editor of Editor & Publisher and author of nine books, including "Hiroshima in America" (with Robert Jay Lifton).
Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch
Queen Noor of Jordan: Bid Farewell to Nuclear Arms
The naysayers are wrong; it is not too late to put the nuclear genie back in its bottle, where it belongs. History has shown us that, through consensus, we can address the most vital global questions.
Evelyn Leopold: Notes From the UN: Iran, Pakistan, the Media
The second round of negotiations among six key nations take place Wednesday on sanctions proposals against Iran for its nuclear program.
William Hartung: Obama's Nuclear Policy: Modest but Important Steps in the Right Direction
President Obama has focused thus far on practical, achievable steps, not sweeping, visionary leaps in policy.
Lord Tarsem King: How to Tackle the Iranian Nuclear Threat
Preventing nuclear terrorism is a noble goal, but in reality, the biggest threat would be for a state that sponsors terrorism to gets its hands on nuclear weapons.
Proudly trotting out various off-the-shelf rationalizations for the use of atomic bombs of WW11, many of which have been repeated here in the comment sections, while actively demanding that others do not develop, acquire or use such weapons.
It seems that no one in the US wants to acknowledge the hypocrisy and the double standard that the remainder of the world sees everyday. For domestic political purposes it is much easier to ignore it.
Then there is the more visceral, but self-defeating "they had it coming" and "remember Pearl Harbor". That one is pretty common.
Then there is the moronically cynical "well, its war". War will be brutal however it is fought... whether by symbolic champions matched one on one with swords or axes hacking one another to bits, or by the tribe or the troop, whether with spears or with attack helicopters and machine guns. To whatever extent we can, by habit, by law , by cultural imperative, by any means.. to whatever extent we can at least spare the innocent the ravages of this barbarous and arbitary means of resolving disputes...war... it seems absurd and perverse not to do so.
This goes beyond whether it was "necessary" to incinerate thousands of babies in their beds in order to persuade the Japanese leadership to surrender on terms we could wisely and reasonably accept, although it apparently wasn't. The calculus that killing a civilian is acceptable if it reduces risk to a soldier is morally bankrupt. And please don't tell me I don't know, because "I haven't been there". I've been there.
Semper fi
It is false to say the US granted the Japanese the right to keep the Emperor since all the US said was that he could call himself whatever he wished. He would still be nothing more than an ordinary Japanese citizen subject to the dictates of McArthur. The US was also looking into prosecuting Hirohito for war crimes after the war, which gives the lie to the idea that the Emperor was allowed to stay on his throne in the US acceptance and the Japanese agreement.
This argument ultimately leads to arming out of fear.
The best way to mitigate the fear of attack by another is to address the source of fear, not the actions to defend against it.
Poverty. Raw materials and natural resources. Clean water and food. Arable land.
We will continue to have conflict between the Haves and Have-nots, if these issues are not addressed by the Haves.
Your argument about 'fear' as a motivator is much more powerful and is the most likely cause of any next nuclear exchange. Israel has a small geographical area and must make calculations in this regard which have razor thin margins of error, as one example.
Stay classy America!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkawa_Elementary_School_Peace_Museum
Clearly the American government and all American supporters did not "give a damn" about killing 400 school children in order to "win the war."
http://www.nhk.or.jp/hiroshima/hibakumap/spot/BD-0005.html
The U.S would not accept their surrender because, dropping nuclear weapons on the civilian population of Japan would show the Soviets who was boss in the world. Of course, the propaganda machine had to first demonize the entire Japanese civilian population. To make them into devils. No one would care about incinerating devils..
but in practice, has it? However as we can keep on arguing for two nukes dropped on Japan, I miss a daft point in my mind, "Could dropping one bomb, instead of two, on Japan would have served the same interest as the two bombs did?" Whatever else be the arguments!
In this raging debate on "Nuclear Terrorism", everything else apart, untill we quiten the religious partitioned jihadi philosophical killing institnct of hate politics in the name of a "Chosen People", there is hardly any credible legitimacy of any debate on any kind of peace effort. First and formost of all, the mind has to be cleansed. "Mind is the root cause of all the Evils". The medieval mindset needs to be cleansed.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
But what is incontestable is that: we dropped it on civilian targets to maximize casualties (yes, there were military facilities in Hiroshima, but that would not justify the enormous collateral civilian damage); one single decision was made to drop two separate bombs, with a time lag in between, which did not allow the Japanese Government time to mobilize for a surrender; and even after we used nuclear weapons, the Japanese Government still did not surrender until we promised to maintain Hirohito on the throne (and then we falsified his “non- role” in the war at the Tokyo war crimes trial to protect him). What if we had made the latter promise earlier, as you imply.
The threat of first use was employed by earlier administrations to deter the Soviets from invading Europe, as the Soviets had conventional superiority. It still has advantages, in terms of deterrence and creating high/unacceptable risks for potential adversaries. It would be wise, however, to strengthen the firebreak between conventional and nuclear war by ensuring the U.S. has formidable conventional capabilities to preclude a risky slide towards first use.
Also, does anybody have any doubt that had Japan or Germany developed the bomb first that they would have used on cities such as New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles and every other major population center until they received unconditional surrender. Trust, you wouldn't want to live in an America whereby we were ruled by the Japanese...just ask the Koreans and American POWs held in their camps...death is a mercy.
The war with Japan was degenerating into a war of genocide and many in Washington realized that it needed to be stopped now before an allied invasion. The entry of the Soviets into the war did not change the Japanese High Commands plans of fighting to the last Japanese. No credible proposal came from the Japanese there is no evidence of this coming Japanese surrender that the history revisionists claim. So Truman could only base his decision on what he knew not on what we think he should have known.
The fact is an invasion of the home islands would have cost millions of lives and Truman had to weigh that with the hope that the bombs would end the war. Also decrying the fact that there was a political factor in the decision is insincere beyond belief; please point to a major decision in history that did not have a political element to it.
One can't take a revisionist look back at WW II and ONLY focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was total war, with the overwhelming majority of it being conventional. Many aspects of the conventional war were just as brutal, and in notable cases, more brutal than the nuclear aspect of WW II.
Bottom line: no amount of actual warfare is surgical, and America no longer conducts "total warfare" (even "conventional total warfare"). (And before anyone assails that argument, imagine what it would be like if America had conducted its two latest wars in the "total war" style of WW II.)
WW II was a different war, a different time, and a different style. Bringing "modern sensibility" to the argument through revisionist means isn't exactly the most productive approach.
There's no argument here that the use of the bombs was immoral, but being immoral and being unnecessary are two different things.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/040210Floyd.shtml