The Ethics of Hiroshima

It’s August 6. Sixty-four years ago today, the U.S. dropped the first of the only two nuclear weapons in the history of Earthly warfare. About 140,000 people in Hiroshima died by the end of 1945; some of them instantaneously, and some of them from radiation sickness, trauma, and burns. It’s hard to argue that the notion of such destruction is unspeakably horrific.

But was it the right thing to do?

First of all, let me make loud and clear that I can’t POSSIBLY fairly evaluate this question, since I wasn’t born until almost 40 years after the fact. I know nothing about what a World War feels like. But, I do find it interesting to think about and to hear others’ opinions on the subject.

Let’s start off with some facts. On July 26, 1945, Harry Truman (US President), Winston Churchill (UK Prime Minister), and Chiang Kai-shek (China President) issued the Potsdam Declaration, stating that either Japan surrenders immediately or face “prompt and utter destruction.” Eleven days later, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Three days after that, a second bomb was detonated over Nagasaki. Six days after that, Japan surrendered.

Probably the most frequent pro-bomb argument is that it actually saved lives. Either we continue to fight a stubborn Japanese empire that would’ve resulted in hundreds of thousands or millions of Japanese and American casualties as the war dragged on, or we end the war quickly. The atomic bomb demonstrated the power of the U.S. arsenal, and brought the war to a decidedly swift conclusion.

Then there are those that say destroying two cities and killing a huge number of civilians is barbaric, unnecessary, and wrong, no matter what. Some go so far as to characterize the tactic as a war crime.

Interestingly, this issue came up on The Daily Show a few months ago when torture and waterboarding was on everyone’s mind. During a spirited (and very interesting) argument with Cliff May, the President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jon Stewart said straight up that President Truman committed a crime of war (starting at about the 5:40 mark):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Cliff May Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

(The other parts of the interview: Part 1, Part 3)

...To which, two days later, he realized what he said and made the following apology:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Harry Truman Was Not a War Criminal
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

I did find Stewart’s suggestion interesting: why didn’t the U.S. just drop a bomb 15 miles offshore, thereby demonstrating the military might of the U.S. and the futility of Japanese resistance without killing a single civilian?

But a counter-argument: there's no guarantee that even that would've ended the war. Additionally, one comment on a blog I read said, “Doesn’t it follow from the logic of his argument that Nagasaki was permissible, since the Japanese hadn’t surrendered after Hiroshima? It’s a bit counter-intuitive that Hiroshima would be wrong, but Nagasaki not wrong.” Difficult to argue with that.

The debate continues. But there is one thing we can all agree on: two nuclear weapons have been detonated in an act of war. In these unsure times, let’s hope and pray and do whatever it takes so that number stays exactly where it is. I wasn’t alive during most of the Cold War, either, and can’t possibly comprehend the tension that was around in those days. I kinda like not knowing what that feels like.