I've changed my mind about Hiroshima

[wtmusic]

and it's taken Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians to do it.

Growing up in the sixties the A-Bomb was something to be proud of. The largest governmental effort in history (monetarily) had paid off--not only had we gained extraordinary insights into nuclear physics, but we had ended WWII.

We didn't know during the war that Germany had dropped their program, so at the time developing it was the only prudent course of action. But as we "learned" later, Japan was close to capitulation in August of 1945. What did Truman know at the time? Is there any doubt that all that time and effort expended on the Bomb had become a factor in the final decision to use it?

The State Department tells us that terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." What's interesting is the exemption of nations from this definition. Apparently governments are incapable of conducting terrorism, even though every other aspect of the definition applies: the reasons are the same, the victims are just as innocent, the victims are just as dead.

As I read arguments supporting Israel's ruthless bombing of civilian areas and the Lebanese infrastructure, I see exactly the same arguments that were used to rationalize bombing Japan: "this/that would have happened...it saved lives...they've waited too long...they have the right to defend themselves". The bottom line is this--Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes in every possible interpretation of the phrase. The A-Bomb was an instrument of terror. We incinerated 150,000 civilians with the only purpose of "influencing an audience", and the pressure to use it was one which Truman should have resisted.

[Poll_Blind]

1. It was really used to bully the Russians from steamrollering over...

...Europe after Germany fell. Not that that fact should in someway inflect on the horrors of it's use, just filling in a piece.

PB

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. A mostly unacknowledged fact.

Also, that the militarists were more afraid of a Soviet revolution/takeover than they were of the A-Bomb.

[Poll_Blind]

4. Agreed, that's not my deepest area of understanding. Seemed...

...fairly convincing as I believe the Japanese were working to surrender at the time.

:shrug:

PB

[sweetheart]

5. Yes, however could have been done with a demo

The need for a live incineration was more deeply disturbing.

[wtmusic]

7. A public demonstration of the Trinity test

was ruled out in large part because a flop would prove too embarrassing. But post-Trinity, a public demo of the bomb would have provided more than enough evidence of its destructive power.

[knitter4democracy]

20. I've always said that a demo would've been good, but Dad . . .

My dad worked at Livermore on the path to his degree in engineering, and he worked with people who had worked on the Manhattan Project. He said that they didn't do a demo because they literally only had the two bombs and weren't sure which would work, if either would at all.

I still think we could've dealt with that by making two of each and using one to demo. Or, we could've bluffed and done a full-set demo and threatened to drop the other one if there were no surrender by a certain date. How would Japan have known that we didn't have another one just like the demo? The emperor was waffling at that point about surrender, so a demo would've been a strong reason to surrender.

Instead, we vaporized people, leaving only their shadows in the pavement. There are no words for that kind of evil.

[arcane1]

10. indeed, Russia was the "audience"

:evilfrown:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I believe that Truman, himself

believed that in the final equation he saved lives.

I guess we'll never know for certain.

[wtmusic]

12. I agree

and the problem is that it's lazy. It's much easier and less risky to drop a bomb from 20,000 ft than it is to invade; it's much easier to conduct indiscriminate aerial strikes than it is to gather boots-on-the-ground intel; it's much easier to melt a city with white phosphorus (Fallujah) than go house-to-house. It makes then enemy's civilian population assume 100% of the risk of loss of life.

[mcscajun]

6. I didn't need to change my mind. I read the book "Hiroshima"

by John Hersey when I was just starting high school in 1965; it opened my mind in a way no history book entry on the dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945 ever had, or could.

The book begins simply: "AT EXACTLY fifteen minutes past eight in the morning, on August 6, 1945, Japanese time, at the moment when the atomic bomb flashed above Hiroshima, Miss Toshiko Sasaki, a clerk in the personnel department of the East Asia Tin Works, had just sat down at her place in the plant office and was turning her head to speak to the girl at the next desk."

Hersey goes on to tell the tale of six survivors, and along the way provides horrifying accurate details of the aftermath of the attack.

It's a must read for all, IMHO. I need to revisit it myself; in 1985, there was another chapter added, updating us on the lives of these six people, and more.

[wicket]

9. Excellent book

I read it while in the 8th grade in the early 1990's. Very powerful, and eye opening. The part about people's skin slipping off like gloves has been burned into my mind every since.

[mcscajun]

11. Yes, that line has never, ever left me. Most powerful image ever.

Bar none.

[liberalmuse]

8. In grade school...

Hiroshima was something to be proud of, because it helped us win the war. Years later, when I really thought about it, I was and still am absolutely horrified. The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nukes against a civilian population. It was an incomprehensible thing to do. Ironically, Harry S. Truman was largely responsible for the creation of the current state of Israel.

[mom cat]

13. K&R and thanks for your story about your journey.

[megatherium]

14. PBS had an interesting documentary last year on the end of

the Japenese war in WWII. I believe it was part of the American Experience series. It makes it abundantly clear why the US leadership decided it was necessary to use the bomb. The alternative would have been an invasion of Japan, set for November of 1945. Military intelligence indicated that Japan still had substantial ability to resist an invasion; at first US military planners anticipated four divisions of resistance, but it was learned that nine divisions awaited them, then 13. They had, based on their experience in the South Pacific, detailed estimates of both US and Japanese casualties. The numbers would have been enormous. Truman was compelled to use the bomb, if for no other reason that the American people would have been furious if they learned we had such a weapon but did not use it.

If Truman decided not to use the bomb and to not invade, it would have been necessary to negotiate a surrender of Japan that was not unconditional (leaving the Japanese militarists in power). This would have been unacceptable to the American people, after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March. The Japanese leadership was viewed as so evil as to require complete destruction. (In the event, we did allow the Japanese to retain their Emporer, as a ceremonial head of state). If the negotiations had been protracted, the likely outcome would have been a Soviet invasion. Japan would have been at least partly captured by the Soviets, something we did not want to happen.

Use of the atom bomb must also be understood in the context of the war as it had been prosecuted by the US. It was essentially a total war. Neither side gave any quarter. The Japanese exerimented on live Chinese prisoners with biological warfare agents. The Japanese murdered in cold blood hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nanking. The US conducted a terrible campaign of strategic (conventional) bombing, perfecting the technique of starting firestorms, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

But none of this morally justifies the use of the bomb. The bomb I believe is one of the most horrendous war crimes in human history. But it makes the use of the bomb very understandable.

[wtmusic]

15. It makes the use of the bomb understandable

only in the sense that the actions of Genghis Khan were understandable.

If civilization can't move beyond tit-for-tat war crimes, we are doomed.

[megatherium]

16. Use of the bomb didn't solve the problem of war.

Although arguably when the Soviets got the bomb, it prevented the Soviet/Europe/US "world war three" feared after WWII ("Pax Atomica"). And for the last 50 years, Japan has shown little belligerence to its neighbors in part because we used the bomb to so effectively prove to the Japanese that militarism is a disaster. (I hope we don't learn a similar lesson soon.) And even in the Middle East, the presence of nuclear weapons (in the hands of Israel) has prevented a runaway conflagration; hence the use of terrorism (a strategy of low-grade war) by Israel's enemies. Both sides must forever calibrate their actions to avoid forcing their opponents to take precipitate action.

As far as what the ultimate solution to continued conflict is, I cannot say; I fear war is written in our genome. But worse, it is becoming clear that natural resources (water, food, energy) are rapidly becoming depleted or inadequate, and many wars of the past were resource wars. (WWII is a prime example: the Germans sought "lebensraum" and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in part because the US threatened their supply of petroleum.) We are going to have a rough time.

on edit: spelling

[sueragingroz]

17. According to Oppenheimer

Did Oppenheimer believe that the Allies would have won the war without dropping the two atomic bombs?

Sherwin and Bird: After the war Oppenheimer came to believe that he had been misled about the need to use the bomb against Japan to prevent an invasion. After the war he learned that the Japanese had been trying to surrender since June on terms other than unconditional surrender. He also learned that the Soviet Union was committed to enter the war against Japan no later than Aug. 15, which virtually guaranteed Japan’s surrender.

From: http://stnews.org/News-1448.htm

[megatherium]

18. The key phrase is "terms other than unconditional surrender."

The US leadership was unwilling to consider this. Nor were they prepared to allow the Soviet Union to gain domination over a destroyed Japan. I doubt the US leadership was deliberately deceptive about Japan's condition or intentions at the end of the war--what they said in private matched what they said in public. We do know that the Japanese government was lead by the pro-war faction, which argued that a last ditch suicidal resistance to an invasion would allow Japan to secure a surrender that would leave the militarist regime in power. We also know that they still argued this after Hiroshima (they believed the US had only one of this singular weapon). With Nagasaki, the Emperor intervened and surrendered unconditionally.

But Oppenheimer wasn't the only one to have his doubts about the bomb. Leo Szilard, the originator of the idea of the fission bomb, lobbied against its use before the end of the war on the grounds that it was too cruel. It was built because everyone was convinced (correctly) that the Germans had a bomb program, and a German bomb would have been unimaginable. Szilard and others felt that the bomb was far better left unused, that use of the bomb was too dangerous a precedent to set.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the bomb hadn't been used. My best guess is that Japan would not have surrendered, that the Soviets would have invaded from the north, which would have forced us to invade from the south to prevent the Soviets from capturing the enemy we had worked so hard to defeat. The US invasion would have probably not been as sanguinary as feared, since the Japanese were low on fuel and weak with hunger. The war would have ended in early 1946. The net loss of life would have been similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps less. Truman would have not been re-elected in 1948 because the American people would not yet have forgiven his forbearance in refraining from using the bomb.

[Solon]

28. You forget, Japan only had ONE condition for a surrender...

That the Emperor remains as head of the state, and guess what, Japan right now has an Emperor. The US wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally, but then, after Japan did surrender, after the dropping of the Atom bombs, the US then LET them keep the Emperor anyways. So basically, the US could have accepted the FIRST surrender, and the dropping of the bombs wasn't necessary at all.

[megatherium]

33. Not really.

From Wikipedia:

On July 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration, announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay."

• the elimination "for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
  
• the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
  
• "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be stripped of her pre-war empire, including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
  
• "The Japanese military forces, shall be completely disarmed"
  "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
  

But on the other hand,

• "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
  
• "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
  
• "The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
  

The only mention of "unconditional surrender" came at the end:

• "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
  

This was deliberately met with silence by the Japanese. They were still trying to solicit the help of the Soviet Union to negotiate favorable terms for peace. They did not know that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Japan and they did not know that the US was preparing its nuclear weapons for use against Japan.

[pitohui]

19. truman was a poker player

certainly part of the reason was to send a message to russia that we were not to be fucked w.

you can agree or disagree w. what he did, but the intent of the message was to save american lives, both the lives that would be lost in an invasion of japan and the lives that would be lost in a "hot" conflict with the soviet union

i don't think you can much argue w. the decision to drop the bomb on hiroshima, the decision to drop a second one on nagasaki is much more morally dubious, the main purpose there seems to have been to test the second kind of bomb (there were two types)

[wtmusic]

21. I have a problem with the "would be" part

and I understand that point of view. I lived with it for 48 years. Now I all I hear is how Saddam "would" attack us with WMDs, how Lebanon "would" never stop supporting Hezbollah. I see revenge for Pearl Harbor and pride in our technical accomplishments, two emotions which should not be part of the decision at all.

[pitohui]

23. if you argue that the future is unknowable

then i don't think you are going to get many people to go down that path, yes, to a certain extent, the future is unknowable, but we were given a brain to make predictions and decisions to the best of our ability

truman could hardly just wait and see if millions were killed in an invasion of japan followed up with an undignified hot battle for asia and europe w. the soviet union and then decide, hmmm, maybe dropping the bomb wouldn't have been such a bad idea

he had to do the best he could w. the information he had at the time

sometimes you gotta be pro-active and let people sitting comfortable on the sidelines throw their damn tomatoes

[wtmusic]

25. So attacking civilian populations is OK sometimes?

I don't buy it. It's lazy strategy and lazy morality.

[pitohui]

31. sunday quarterbacking is lazy strategy and lazy morality as well

somehow i am glad that harry truman was the one to make the decision and not pitohui or wtmusic

there was never any guarantee that civilization was going to survive the 1950s

[cali]

22. Really?

It took Israel bombing Lebanon to jar you into realizing that? The far worse bombing of Vietnam didn't register with you? The bombing of Iraq didn't clue you in? Afghanistan?

I deplore what Israel's doing but I suspect there's a fair amount of projection going on.

[wtmusic]

24. Call me naive

and actually it was a debate last night with our own the Magistrate that got me pondering. He's good at that sort of thing.

[raysr]

26. I grew up in the

60's and I never shared your opinion about Hiroshima, in fact, I read the book "Hiroshima" in high school, I was horrified. Also about a year ago I watched a doc that said the idea that the bomb saved US lives was another lie, and the bombings were unnecessary because Japan had already surrendered.

[wtmusic]

27. I went to a high school named after the author

and still didn't get a clue. That's what happens when you grow up in a Republican household.

[neebob]

29. I can relate

I grew up in a Mormon Republican household, and my mother still insists that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American lives and that's a good thing. My dad I think might have been a tiny bit conflicted about it, since he visited Japan in the Navy in the late fifties, but he also said it was necessary and his other views were so far right wing that they'd have cancelled out any twinges of doubt he might have had.

I don't know about you, but I was in grade school during Vietnam, and living in Salt Lake City ... well.

I was inclined to consider alternative viewpoints early on, because they were presented to me as bad - e.g., dirty hippies and their all-American chicken print and those braless women's libbers and what have you. Being bad made them attractive. I think whatever resonated with you and caused you to change your mind, that's a good thing.

Good for you, having the courage to say it.

[wtmusic]

30. I hear you

re: the bad/attractive part. I was a rebel, but at the same time I had the "wanting to make Dad proud" thing going on--if that isn't a recipe for schizophrenia, I don't know what is

[blues90]

32. in the 50's when i was growing up

I saw photo's of the result of the A-bomb and it horrified me , just as the photo's in life magazine did of all the things hitler did to the jews . I could never get this out of my head , Then in the early 60's with the cuban missile crisis here I felt i would become a victim of such a bomb . This was truly scary stuff so I have to say i never felt this sort of horror did one bit of good and now we are faced with this once again as we see other citizens in the middle east suffer all sorts or awful death and suffering . We will never learn because we never think we will end up sharing the experience but now it looks pretty real .