FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In 1945, the world’s largest democracy became the world’s first country to use weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An estimated 200,000 non-combatants were either killed immediately or afterwards. The bombs left a lasting genetic imprint on those exposed to its residual radiation.

Some argue that the bomb helped to save further loss of life. However, others have questioned whether the US had any moral authority for killing civilians. Recently, Roy Clouser of the College of New Jersey has argued that the US should have tried a lot harder to avoid using the bomb. The rationale for developing the bomb was to defeat Hitler. “But by August, 1945, Hitler was dead and Germany had surrendered.”

Albert Einstein, whose theoretical research enabled the development of the bomb, was forever remorseful that his name was associated with the Manhattan project. In 1955, along with Bertrand Russell, he issued a manifesto that cautioned world governments to abolish nuclear weapons, since they would almost certainly be used during a future world war.

This Manifesto fell on deaf years. In November 1957, Mao declared his intention to fight a nuclear war. In the worst case, perhaps one half of the world’s 2.7 billion people would die. “But there would still be one-half left; imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.” Increasingly distrustful of the Soviet Union, China carried out its first nuclear explosion in 1964, leading India to carry out its first explosion ten years later.

The US and the Soviet Union became engaged in the world’s most expensive-and most dangerous-arms race. Henry Kissinger compared this arms race to a conflict between two heavily armed blind men feeling their way around a room, “each believing himself in mortal peril from the other whom he assumes to have perfect vision. Each tends to ascribe to the other side a consistency, foresight and coherence that its own experience belies.”

Each superpower produced more than enough warheads to blow up the world’s population several times over. Hoping to secure itself against a Soviet attack that never came, the US spent five and a half trillion dollars on its nuclear program. According to one study, had the US spent even half of the amount on health, education and welfare programs, it would have permanently eliminated poverty and deprivation from American society.

In May 1998, as he witnessed India’s five nuclear tests, Dr. Abdul Kalam, now that nation’s president-elect, was elated: “I heard the earth thundering below our feet and rising ahead of us in terror. It was a beautiful sight.” The world’s first nuclear explosion in 1945 had elicited a much more appropriate comment from the architect of the Manhattan project. Robert Oppenheimer was moved to quote from the Bhagavad Gita, “Brighter than a thousand suns, I am become Death, the destroyer of the worlds.”

India and Pakistan almost went to war this May. When war did not happen, hard liners on both sides credited its not happening to the presence of nuclear weapons. That may indeed have been the case, but no one can guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used in a future war. Since 1998, both nations have increased their spending on conventional weapons, and are simultaneously engaged in a nuclear arms race, belying the assertion that nuclear weapons restrain conventional military spending.

On August 6, the mayor of Hiroshima invited President Bush to visit Hiroshima “to confirm with his own eyes what nuclear weapons can do to human beings.” He lashed out at Washington’s go-it-alone stance. “America has not been given the right to impose a ‘Pax Americana’ and to decide the fate of the world. Rather, we, the people of the world, have the right to insist that we have not given you the authority to destroy the world.”

In a recent report, the Council on Foreign Relations concludes that ”America’s image problem is global,” and that ”it is essential for the administration to listen to the world, even as it defines American interests and defends and asserts them abroad.”

The Bush administration needs to encourage open debate among Americans, and to welcome dissenters who question whether current foreign policy is serving America’s national interests. That is the only way to do justice to the democratic ideals that are enshrined in the US Constitution, and to ensure that we will not follow imperial Japan’s path of wanton military aggression.

Ahmad Faruqui, an economist, is a fellow of the American Institute of International Studies. He can be reached at faruqui@pacbell.net

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail