65th Anniversary

On this date in 1945 the United States dropped a nuclear weapon on the Japanese City of Hiroshima.

The "Silverplate" B-29, Enola Gay, dropped the "Little Boy" bomb at 0815 Hiroshima Time.  The results were horrendous.

This was followed, on the 9th of August, by a second bomb, on Nagisaki.

Many argue that the use of nuclear weapons brought about the end of the war with Japan in 1945.  Others argue that it was really the Soviet declaration of war and their offensive against the Japanese Army in Manchura, which saw quick victory over the Japanese Kwantung Army.

Either way, 14 August 1945 (15 August in Japan) was the end of the war, although the surrender was not signed until 2 September.

The question remains, should the United States have dropped nuclear weapons on Japan.  Many service members from that era say yes, as they did not look forward to Operation DOWNFALL, the invasion of the Japanese homeland.

One of the questions is expected casualties.  The Japanese had lost its Navy and much of its air forces, but it still had manpower.  A gentleman I count money with at the Immaculate Conception Parish was a SeeBee at the time and later went to China to help repatriate Japanese Army soldiers.  He said they were told there were one million men to return to Japan, but it was more like two million.  In his view they were fresh and not like those defeated by the Soviet forces just a short time before.  It is likely there would have been high US casualties and even higher Japanese losses, both military and civilian.

The other factor in favor is that, as someone noted about Presidents Lincoln and Truman, there is a theory of a hard war and a soft peace.  Japan knew the terrible things the United States was capable of (just as the United States knew the terrible things of which the Japanese were capable).  So, post-war resistence did not really exist.  This made the occupation much easier for all sides.  This is in contrast to our wars with Iraq, where efforts to use precision weapons and minimize overall casualties by a doctrine that emphasized speed and maneuver resulted in not influencing either the government or the people that it was time for a soft peace.  Instead, after the first war we got a belligerent President Saddam Hussein and after the second a series of deadly insurgencies.

In the past we have compared von Clausewitz's ideas about war,

It is “composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason....”

with the People, the Army and the State.♠  The idea is, that unless we get the attention of "the People" we are not going to get a real peace.

You may not like this view, but it is one possible explanation of the situation.  War is an ugly business and, as Clausewitz tells us, we are fooling ourselves if we talk about bloodless battles, Sun Tzu notwithstanding.

Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect.

But, Clausewitz notwithstanding, was the use of nuclear weapons disproportional, in Just War terms?

I am afraid that the answer to that must be left to each individual reader.

However, I would note something my wife said to me a while back.  If Pakistan or India use nuclear weapons it might well tear away the veil that allows us to all see nuclear weapons as too terrible to use.  If either employed nuclear weapons and the world did not come to an end it would be a very bad thing for all of us.

There are calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons.  I admit that I am dubious about the ability to do this.  In particular, I think that reductions are dangerous, as small numbers of nuclear weapons give an advantage to the side that can hide a hundred warheads or so.  Thus, the only option is total abolition.  This is workable as long as we are all prepared to accept the idea that some terrorist organization or rogue nation might cobble together a few crude weapons and use them.  We will have to be ready to call the bluff on any nuclear blackmail.

There have also been calls for the US to apologize for the use of nuclear weapons.  And calls for the US President to visit Hiroshima.  I say visit yes, but apology no.

UPDATE:  I just came across an EMail from yesterday in which someone point out that:

Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for which the United States was a prime mover, provides (in somewhat unartful language):

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Since the United States ratified this treaty, it is the "supreme law of the land," and the president has the constitutional responsibility to "faithfully execute" it. While it does not establish a timetable for pursuing any particular measure of arms control, the mandate for "good faith" negotiations is a commitment that the United States voluntarily assumed; the phrase "at an early date" is also vague and subject to various interpretations -- but it surely cannot mean "forever".

There is some food for thought.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  This understanding is undergoing some revision, as noted here.