60 Years From The End Of The World.

We knew the world could not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: "I am became Death, the destroyers of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, July 16, 1945.

The world has not been the same. My brothers and I grew up under the black devil of the arms race and it colored every political thought I had as a young man. I was one of those who was certain that Ronald Reagan was going to get us all incinerated. The very concept of Mutual Assured Destruction seemed, well, mad.

I still hew to the belief that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved possibly hundreds of thousands of lives, both Japanese and American and that Russia's entrance into the Pacific hastened the decision. However, many who were actually alive and in the thick of the battle were certain that the Japanese were already defeated and looking for a way to surrender.

This is not to indict America or to gloss over Japan's atrocities but to acknowledge that the decision to drop the bombs ushered in an era of unprecedented danger that we live with today.

Now, no one can say that if the bombs had not been dropped that we would still not have found ourselves toe to toe with the Russkies. But sixty years after the bombing of two Japanese cities we are still faced with nuclear destruction, but now from an enemy that cares not that they themselves, or their fellow countrymen or coreligionists, will insure their own annihilation with one atomic bomb.

As the nuclear club expands to include North Korea and Iran--two countries without conscience or care--the world dithers. But this is not the immediate threat.

The threats now, as I see it, are two: If North Korea and Iran get the bomb, countries in their respective regions will feel compelled to develop their own nuclear capacity, thus touching off a truly dangerous and global arms race.

Secondly, nuclear technology in the hands of such states as Iran and North Korea make it more likely that terrorists could get their hands on a warhead. Here, I hope, the weapon would be used for extortion rather than mass murder, but we can't be sure about that anymore, can we? And if a bomb in the hands of al Qaeda would be a threat vehicle, what would the demands be? And what would the response be?

The second scenario is much more worrisome than the first (even as some experts declare, for instance, that tactical weapons could not easily be handled and so-called "suitcase nukes," if in fact they exist, have by now deteriorated beyond usefulness).

This matters not. The only country to ever have been struck by man's most terrible weapon says yearly, "enough:"

"To the citizens of America: we understand your anger and anxiety over the memories of horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"Yet, is your security actually enhanced by your government’s policies of maintaining 10,000 nuclear weapons, of carrying out repeated sub-critical nuclear tests, and of pursuing the development of new ’mini’ nuclear weapons?

"We are confident that the vast majority of you desire in your hearts the elimination of nuclear arms. May you join hands with the people of the world who share that same desire, and work together for a peaceful planet free from nuclear weapons."

Would that the solution be so easy. No one can honestly believe that if the United States became nuclear-free tomorrow that the nations of the world--and the terror organizations bent on the establishment of a global caliphate--would trash whatever bombs were in storage or development.

Sadly, it is more likely that if humanity ever decides that it has played with death enough, that realization will come only after some cataclysm is visited upon us.

There will always be those who insist that  fighting a war makes us more vulnerable to war and will question the motives and actions of the US no matter what the circumstances. If it isn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's Falujah and Kabul. These are the wrong people to be talking about nuclear proliferation. We need people who know what it is to fight a war and how necessary a strong defense is to become the leaders that will pull us out of our nuclear trap.

MORE: Austin Bay has some perspective.

Apparently, the moral facility to condemn the bomb is directly related to one's distance, in space and time, from actual combat.

Declaring that "Hiroshima was a war crime" has become an anti-American academic racket. One clique maintains Truman A-bombed "yellows" in order to impress Stalin. Truman was a calculating "racist-fascist." Such "opinions" deserve special damnation. They libel a genuine democratic populist and the president who desegregated the American armed forces.

I buy Bay's argument, although I'm not willing to accept the premise that all critics are ipso facto removed from combat. That's a little like saying that only soldiers can support a war, no?

Comments

[Matt]

The notion that Japan was looking for a way to surrender does not square with fact. Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima, Japanese soldiers kept fighting long after Nagasaki. The Japanese government tried to prevent Hirohito from broadcasting his message calling for surrender, even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No, there were no plans for surrender.

[Doug]

"I buy Bay's argument, although I'm not willing to accept the premise that all critics are ipso facto removed from combat. That's a little like saying that only soldiers can support a war, no?"
Basic logical arguement error #1. It's like saying 'all cabbages are plants, thus the inverse, all plants are cabbages". A statement being true does not make it's inverse true.

[Daniel]

Actually, I am not stating the inverse here. Both arguments refers to the belief that only those in combat, or have seen combat can criticize it. It isn't an inverse argument.