Man is a mad animal: thoughts on Hiroshima

“Man is a mad animal.” – Orson Welles

On the eve of the 75^th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, it’s time for a reassessment of the mental state of the human race. Have we learned anything from the wiping out of hundreds of thousands civilians? On August 6, 1945, the United States became an imperial force. Some have argued it was better to have the U.S.A. than the U.S.S.R. in control and there may be merit in that statement. However, at the end of the day, is the adage about the corrupting aspect of power comes to mind.

The decision to employ nuclear weapons against Japan was a signal, not to the Japanese – who were beaten and ready to surrender – but to Russia and yes, yes, to the Japanese in terms of decimating them and punishing them for their imperial hubris(1). An act of supreme barbarism was used as a flexing of devastating leverage to bring the communist state to heel, to put them on guard and be made aware of how mighty we were. It was an act worthy of the most barbarous of emperors and empires. It was savage, racist, and a tactic designed to instill fear in our enemies, but also, the rest of the world. It was an act of terrorism.

We now live in a world where, if the threat of nuclear holocaust has receded, the underlying causes for it, have not. The accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few to rule over the many persists and at unprecedented, if foreseeable, levels. I have a jaded view of humanity’s ability to make the wrong choices, not the least of which is causing suffering for immediate, short-term, and often, selfish ends.

I don’t believe that all politicians are evil; I don’t believe all people are ignorant, but I do believe that once power and wealth come to those that acquire them, they become the means for ensuring a retardation of any forward movement for society. We valorize the individual at the expense of the people, where “people” means those with little or no wealth or power.

The lives of those who do not directly or immediately benefit the power holders in some way are either negligible at best or malignancies to be removed, at worst. The Japanese of Nagasaki and Hiroshima three days later, were expendable.

They served a “greater” purpose, some said and still claim. Too many apologists for the use of these horrible devices claim that their use was necessary. It never was. Anytime that force is used instead of diplomacy, this is either impatience, hubris, or frank indifference to the suffering of others.

But then, the Japanese were dehumanized. Asians were never considered equal to the white man in the United States (or Europe, or wherever the colonist mind set obtained). However, that would change over the decades once Japan pushed forward and gained economic clout. Money talks. Money validates your existence.

Thjs is not to say that this characterizes all leaders, but the arrogance of wealth and power manifests and extends itself through all societies. It ensures marginalization, it demands obeisance. Consequently, when that arrogance is questioned and found wanting, when its fear and insecurities are exposed, it stammers, dissembles, stutters, and lies.

That we live in a world of increasing inequality comes as no surprise. This will lead to further upheavals, probably more state violence. Will it lead to development and deployment of large-scale nuclear weapons? India and Pakistan? Israel and Iran? China and the U.S.? I find it doubtful, but keeping stockpiles of these weapons is always there for more dick-wagging and as threats of intimidation. And we have world leaders in each of those countries who are quite adept at that.

No state lasts forever. Either as in “state of being” or as in political state. Events fluctuate, change, and shift shape again and again. But I do feel that we see improvement every now and again in areas of society, in the world, where the narrative changes for the better.

I agree with Welles; I also agree with his follow-up comments that we are possessed of great possibility for evil, but more importantly, for good. By good, I most definitely mean, caring and compassion, supporting and loving. Many of us exercise these capacities under horrible circumstances.

Even atomic bombs can’t stop that.

Note:

1. Henry I. Miller, in a stunningly tone-deaf article, claims that the bombings of Hiroshima and later, Nagasaki were a moral imperative. His apologetic for the use of the atomic bomb only serves to underscore the kind of madness that would label this "the least bad of alternatives." He concludes that it was data that saved the day in light that an invasion would have been untenable. See, his article "" (link below). 

For contrast, Ward Wilson provides context for where Japan was in the summer of 1945, from the Foreign Policy article from May 30, 2013 also cited below:

"In the summer of 1945, the U.S. Army Air Force carried out one of the most intense campaigns of city destruction in the history of the world. Sixty-eight cities in Japan were attacked and all of them were either partially or completely destroyed. An estimated 1.7 million people were made homeless, 300,000 were killed, and 750,000 were wounded. Sixty-six of these raids were carried out with conventional bombs, two with atomic bombs. The destruction caused by conventional attacks was huge. Night after night, all summer long, cities would go up in smoke."

Sources/Further Reading:

The Current Situation:

On the 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima, Here's Where the World Stands With Nuclear Weapons: shorturl.at/ikzNP

Trump team’s case for new nuke cites risks in current arsenal: https://www.rollcall.com/2020/07/29/trump-teams-case-for-new-nuke-cites-risks-in-current-arsenal/

History/Assessments:

Nuclear Weapons Education Project: https://nuclearweaponsedproj.mit.edu/

10 Myths About Nuclear Weapons: https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/07/08/ten-myths-about-nuclear-weapons/

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives: shorturl.at/fAIR3

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Full stop.: https://www.theweek.com/articles/716819/atomic-bombings-hiroshima-nagasaki-war-crimes-full-stop

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto: https://thebulletin.org/virtual-tour/bertrand-russell-and-albert-einsteins-manifesto/#

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did*: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

*This is a provocative title, but an important article that reiterates the larger context in which the U.S., Japan, and Russia played out their roles. The author, Ward Wilson, is a senior fellow at the British American Security Information Council and the author of Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons, from which this article was adapted.

Our Use of Nuclear Weapons 75 Years Ago Was a Moral and Strategic Imperative: https://humanevents.com/2020/08/05/our-use-of-nuclear-weapons-75-years-ago-was-a-moral-and-strategic-imperative/; Miller chastises "Monday-morning quarterbacks" who question the decision to employ the nuclear option. He claims, "Since then, there have been similar periodic eruptions of revisionism, uninformed speculation, and political correctness." This is ultimately nonsense and he is tilting at the wrong windmill. While there was, of course, a sense of relief that the Japanese had been defeated, that this horrible war that had engulfed humanity was over, the moral repercussions were immediate. This has nothing to do with "political correctness"; it was clear to many, if not most, the weapon we utilized was not necessary and resulted in massive suffering. As pointed out above, Japan was in flames.

It is not "revisionism" to call out a moral failure for what it is. The reasons for utilizing the bomb had profoundly little to do with the Japanese Empire, in the long run. The Empire was in ruins, Japan was falling into ash. Moreover, their high command and leaders were between a rock and a hard place. They were aware of the massive bombings that had already taken a toll prior to the atomic bombs' release. But they also feared future conflict with the Soviets and that they themselves, as well as the Emperor would no doubt be tried for war crimes.

Interestingly, the Russians had plans to invade Hokkaido in August 1945.

The "revisionism" accusation rings false in terms of contemporary refutations by U.S. military commanders. MacArthur, for one, was not consulted and didn't feel the bombs were necessary. While I agree that had the U.S. moved forward with Operation Downfall, there would have been heavy casualties. However, according to Kenneth Nichols(1), plans were already in place to produce and deploy atom bombs, regardless. Additionally, U.S. deployment of chemical weapons was under consideration and given Japan's damaged supply chains and particularly, those of access to their own stock of chemical weapons, there is a very good chance that U.S. casualties would not have been as high as prognosticated.

Add to this, the Soviet invasion of late August, and it's unlikely that Japan would have survived much longer.

Regarding unconditional surrender that Miller refers to; the Japanese surrender was conditional. In sum, I'm swayed by neither his rhetoric nor his assumptions.

Note

1. See p. 201, Nichols, Kenneth (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America's Nuclear Policies Were Made. New York: Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-06910-0. "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops." Nicols was the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District.