Sixty years ago, the US dropped bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On Aug. 6, 1945, Hiroshima was hit by an American uranium bomb that produced a blast equivalent to the explosion of 12,000 tons of dynamite. It is estimated that more than 80,000 of Hiroshima's 250,000 residents were killed that day; at least 60,000 more died in the ensuing weeks due to injuries sustained in the atomic blast. And three days after Hiroshima's horror, another US bomb — this one filled with plutonium — landed on Japanese port city Nagasaki. At least 80,000 more human beings perished.
The US bombings of Japan brought about an early end to World War II. The massive loss of life was much less than the number of people killed during the Nazi reign of terror. But was it worth it? For many, it seemed so at the time. But how about in the long run? Was resorting to the use of weapons of mass destruction the way to go? I do not think so. This Pandora's box never should have been opened. I imagine many innocent people in Japan — including the few remaining survivors and their families — and peace-loving people all around the world would agree.
Journalist Walter Cronkite — for my money, still the most trusted man in America — ponders the legacy of the American use of atomic weapons in World War II and the resulting global arms race. And to mark the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, Cronkite offers some sage advice:
[I]n the 60th year of the Nuclear Age, we still have some 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and some 4,000 of these are on hair-trigger alert. You have to wonder about a species that seems so incapable of eliminating the greatest danger to its own survival. Not so incidentally, the United States has more nuclear weapons in its arsenal than any other nation.
There has been much emphasis in the news about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in such countries as North Korea. All countries should abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Few Americans are aware, however, that the treaty also provides that the U.S. and other nuclear weapon states must reduce their numbers of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, disarmament by nuclear weapon states receives limited attention in news reporting, at least within the United States. I think this might be because the continuing existence of our own vast arsenal doesn't seem to Americans, even if they are aware of it, to be nearly as dangerous as the threat of new nations acquiring the ghastly weapons.
The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the hibakusha - have continually warned, "Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist." In the end, I believe this is the most important lesson of Hiroshima. We must eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.
The best security, perhaps the only security, against nuclear weapons being used again, or getting into the hands of terrorists, is to eliminate them. Most of the people of the world already know this. Now it is up to the world's people to impress the urgency of this situation upon their governments. We must act now. The future depends upon us.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tony
I respect the fact that you are entitled to your own opinion and heres mine.
In reality you cant really delude yourself into thinking there is even the most remote posibility that the U.S. will give up its nukes. They might put up show that makes it look like that but if you read the news(not liberal media but news the military posts on some of its own sites) the U.S. is already working on the next generation of nukes. Nukes that will be more "usable" becuase of low radiation yields and the fact that they will be less then 1 kiloton. There purpose is to replace current bunkerbusting bombs that are extremely costly and bulkly with a cost efficient alternative that would be the size of your forearm.
You can protest and throw tantrums all u like but its not going to change anything. 20 years from now there will still be protesters and there will still be nukes and hopefully by then a few countrys such as iran will have been vaperized by them.
2 - Victor Plenty
Even if you are stupid enough to want Iran "vaporized" you cannot do this with nuclear weapons and still guarantee your own country's survival.
Computer models show the destruction of merely ten cities with nuclear warheads might be enough to trigger a nuclear winter. Iran, or any other country of significant size, has far more than ten cities. Thanks to your barbaric stupidity, crops would fail, everywhere across the globe, and particularly in the northern hemisphere. Millions of your own people would die the slow and lingering death of starvation.
Civilization itself might survive the ecological collapse following a nuclear winter. Then again, it might not. Either way, most people wouldn't be around to find out, all because a tiny fraction of humans failed the intelligence test of nuclear disarmanent.
3 - dietdoc
Natalie writes: "Blessings to the people of Japan. Think peace."
Reply: Natalie, I understand your sentiments and I agree that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. I hope that the use of nuclear weapons never happens again. Ever.
However, I am sick to death of those who lament the loss of "innocent" lives in Japan with the attacks on two cities. Having just read extensively over the past few weeks about the horrific (and still not sufficiently acknowledged or punished) systematic war crimes of the Nation of Japan during World War II against all of Asia, I cannot bring myself to share your compassion.
Japan went through the war, which began for them in the mid-1930s against China, forever prclaiming they were not signatories to the Geneva Convention and had no obligation to follow its guidelines for treatment of civilians or POWs during war. Their treatment of "innocent civilians," especially in China but throughout Asia and the Pacific Rim, warrants no pity for the fate of their citizenry. Their treatment, consistently, year after year, of legitmate Allied POWs, was beyond barbaric. I can provide details if you wish - trust me, you don't.
My point is only that, while two wrongs do not make a right, I truly believe that the use of the atomic bomb was required to bring that nation's military powers to bay at that time. I, as an American, do not fault my country nor its government, for the decision resulting in the events of this month, 60 years ago. We were fighting an extraordinarily savage country and people at that time. They, in their national beliefs, were fighting a inferior race (anyone non-Japanese) and it was so entrenched in their national psyche that they would, without appropriate savagery in return, never have surrendered.
I hope, as you and all normal-thinking people do, that it will never be so required again.
Cheers,
Ron
4 - Phillip Winn
#1 -- I hope no country ever sees a bomb anything like those dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ever. The world is a different place now, and the result would be much, much worse -- for us and for them.
For that matter, I wish that we could have the deterrent effect of nukes without actually having the nukes themselves. It would be nice if everybody would agree to eliminate all nukes. Or even 90% of them. Sadly, there are nearly-madmen in this world, and nukes aren't difficult enough to create.
#3 -- There is some debate about whether the bombs actually triggered Japan's surrender or merely accelerated it. They certainly had a positive short-term effect for those not killed by the bombs, but the long-term effect is less certain.
5 - all doomed
Q:
How do you threaten to nuke a shadowy organization that operates with no overt government backing?
A:
You threaten to nuke a country full of people that look like terrorists to you.
Q:
Will this stop terrorists from using nuclear or more likely biological weapons when they attain them?
A:
No. In fact, if terrorists require instability and fear to propagate, it might even encourage them. Not that they need much encouragement.
Q:
When the politicians on the right rattle their WMD sabers to appease the likes of Tony, are they unaware of the consequences, or just preaching to their pulpit?
6 - Nancy
The Japanese have been whining about being bombed for 60 years, conveniently forgetting their own stellar role in bringing the action about; apparently it didn't occur to them then, & it doesn't occur to them now, that bombing Pearl Harbor was just as evil & reprehensible. They got what they deserved & were begging for, & then some. I haven't noticed any of them have ever even considered apologizing for Pearl Harbor. Until they do, tough titties, I have no sympathy or regrets. We did what we had to do to disarm a nation of zealots & barbarians.
7 - bhw
apparently it didn't occur to them then, & it doesn't occur to them now, that bombing Pearl Harbor was just as evil & reprehensible.
Pearl Harbor was a military target. Most of the casualties there were to people in or working for the military.
Our two bombs killed and poisened civilians.
Huge, huge difference.
8 - dietdoc
Phillip, in response to point #3, I agree. It is unclear and will be left to speculation for whatever time historians have left to debate the issue. In my opinion, I believe it made a difference and that we, as a nation, should feel no guilt (zero) for doing what was required to deal with a formidable and determined (fanatical?) enemy. If the bomb was not necessary to defeat the nation of Japan, it was - again in my my opinion - necessary to defeat the culture of the Japanese military establishment and its bushido mentality.
Cheers,
Ron
9 - PseudoErsatz
During WWII, more people were killed by conventional weapons in Japan than by nuclear weapons.
10 - Phillip Winn
Dietdoc (#8), I tend to agree that we should feel no guilt, and certainly not only the Japanese military but all potential enemies since then have had their view of war changed as a result. After all, what was the alternative? There was a race to develop the bomb, and had the Germans developed theirs first, it would be a radically more unpleasant world in which to live, I think.
But guilt and remorse are different from a wish that things could have been different. Your original comment (#3) indicates that you feel the same way: not guilty for what was done, but hopeful that it will never be done again.
11 - Nancy
THAT I think we can all agree on!
12 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Dietdoc, if you are not to blame for the atrocities committed by your country, then neither are the INNOCENT Japanese killed by Fat Man and Little Boy.
13 - Victor Plenty
Collective blame always applies to THEM, never to US.
14 - bhw
During WWII, more people were killed by conventional weapons in Japan than by nuclear weapons.
Are you counting the casualties, too? Such as the people and their descendents who suffered from radiation-related diseases? Did conventional weapons do more total damage to human life than the bombs?
15 - dietdoc
bhw writes: "Our two bombs killed and poisened civilians. Huge, huge difference."
Reply: Just as the aptly-named "Rape of Nanking" (during which over 350,000 Chinese civilians) and the other heinous crimes against civilians throughout the Pacific Rim perpetrated by the Japanese are "non-military targets."
Again, we are comparing apples and oranges but I submit the hands of the Japanese during this regretable period of history are no more or less clean than our own.
For details of the Japanese approach to non-military tagets, I refer you to this link:
http://www.tribo.org/nanking/
Cheers,
Ron
16 - dietdoc
Natalie writes: "Mr. Dietdoc, if you are not to blame for the atrocities committed by your country, then neither are the INNOCENT Japanese killed by Fat Man and Little Boy."
Reply: I refer you to comment #15.
17 - JR
bhw: Did conventional weapons do more total damage to human life than the bombs?
Almost certainly. The Allies firebombed cities full of paper houses. I believe for one raid on Tokyo, the U.S. Army put something like a thousand planes in the air.
18 - Natalie Davis
We can argue for hours or days over whether America's use of WMDs in 1945 was justified in the short term and few minds would be changed. The point is, whether the move was right in the bigger picture is a huge, complicated question. There is a move within Japan to return to its militaristic ways; the nation had turned mostly pacifist in the aftermath of WWII. Now we see Japan's Special Defense Forces, which for decades limited itself to keeping order within the country and fending off Godzilla in a succession of bad films, being used as part of the killing coalition in Iraq. IMO, none of this bodes well.
In June, the film Sengoku Jieitai 1549 was released; loosely translated, the title is Civil Wars Special Defense Forces 1549 (it likely will be renamed Samurai Commando Mission 1549 when its American remake lands). The film was a big-budget war flick about a group of SDFs that, through a maneuver gone wrong, slip through time and end up in the year 1549, during Japan's Warring States period when the vicious Samurai reigned. The leader of these time-traveling SDFs, Matoba (played by Takeshi Kaga of "Iron Chef" fame). Matoba sees an advantage for himself -- he takes on the persona of Oda Nobunaga (a real-life samurai who worked to unify Japan at the end of its civil wars) and becomes a bloodthirsty warrior determined to take control of all of Japan for himself. Two years pass and back in modern-day Japan, things start going away -- parts of the country and many people are disappearing. The SDF realize that this must have something to do with Matoba's tragedy; something must be wreaking havoc on the space-time continuum. It has to be stopped! A team of SDFers is employed to take on a mission: Travel to 1549 and set things to right. The future of Japan and the entire world is at stake! What ends up is a battle royale between the modern-day SDF and the Matoba/Nobunaga-led samurai.
If it sounds silly, many people agree the big-budget, CGI-laden movie, which focuses on huge, bloody battles that stir the senses of theatergoers, goes above and beyond in its almost cartoonish glorification of war. But the film -- and the book upon which it is based -- has raised important, potentially dangerous questions among Japan's citizenry.
An increasing number of people there, weary of pacifism and sick of being seen as indelibly bruised and supposedly emasculated by the specter of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, think it is time for Japan to once again pick up arms and become a valiant fighting force in the world. And a lot of this has been revealed in the wake of Sengoku Jieitai 1549's release, during a time of renewed conflicts between Japan and China and the ongoing "War on Terror." People are lapping this up with a spoon: The film was the number-one box office in Japan after its release last June, and it has spawned continuing discussions about the part that warfare plays and should play in the nation. And the idea of a newly war-embracing Japan will grow: Film deals to remake Sengoku Jieitai 1549 are coming in fast and furious. As of last week, producers in 31 countries have purchased rights to make their own remakes of it. (It's the biggest Japan film success so far, even bigger than The Ring, based on film rights sold.) People are hungry for it, hungry for war. I can't see this as a good thing.
19 - dietdoc
Natalie, I agree with you: we could argue for hours and I am quite sure no one's opinion will change. Further, I completely agree that the discussion of the use of the bomb at the time is entirely different from the discussion of its long-term implications. Those, I think we both agree, have been and are quite negative. My only point was that sometimes we Americans can be a bit rough on the guilt center of the brain.
As for your comments on the cinema of Japan and their national mood, I will have to read further. You have given me an excellent leg-up.
Cheers,
Ron
20 - Nancy
Aside from a brief period spanning the 9th-11th centuries (the Heian), Japanese culture has always been extremely aggressive & zenophobic, as has the basic 'Japanese' personality. They never have been shrinking violets; anyone who's had to deal with them in business knows that. Whenever they get to competing - in business or war - they go no holds barred, no rules observed - except what is in their own interests, of course; hence the crying over Hiroshima: perfectly OK for them to slaughter Chinese, Koreans, Americans, whomever, but anathema to do anything at all in the same kind to Japanese.
21 - Natalie Davis
Stereotype much, Ms. Nancy? Japanese culture does seem ruled by a certain amount of groupthink, but there is individualism there. "They have never been shrinking violets; anyone who's had to deal with them in business knows that" sounds like a really offensive statement to me. I know and love many Japanese people -- that statement doesn't describe any of them.
Look at your own country, Ms. Nancy: "You're either with us or the terrorists." "America - love it or leave it." Following your method of broad-brush painting, it seems Japanese and Americans have much in common. America boo hoos over, say, the 9/11 victims (justifiably), but all too often doesn't think twice about the lives it takes or the repercussions of its actions around the world. Your country has more WMDs than any other nation on the planet and deems that it can decide who can and can't have nuclear weapons. Hey, whatever suits their own interests...
Mr. Ron, I would submit that way too many people in your country don't focus nearly enough on the guilt centers of their brains.
NR Davis
22 - Nancy
No, but I do read/study an awful lot of ethnology, lit, & history. Check it out for yourself, if you haven't already. Except during the 'effete' period of Heian, the cultures were all very warlike, either among each other or against foreigners. This isn't stereotyping, it's historic fact, written by the Japanese themselves.
23 - dietdoc
Natalie writes: "Mr. Ron, I would submit that way too many people in your country don't focus nearly enough on the guilt centers of their brains."
Reply: I'm sorry.
24 - Natalie Davis
I don't quibble with your recounting of history, Ms. Nancy; it is a study of mine as well. What I find offensive is your statements regarding "their" supposed modern-day characteristics.
Mr. Ron, that's one down and millions to go.
NR Davis
25 - dietdoc
Natalie, I will keep count. Like McDonald's...
"Two million Americans made to feel guilty and counting."