.jpg)
Today Japan remembers the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6. It was a tragic and horrible occasion that should not have happened. None of the justifications for it hold up to close scrutiny. First, as a way of forcing Japan to end the war, it was unnecessary. By August of 1945 there was no doubt that Japan had lost the war. Tokyo had been fire bombed into a smoking ruin, the Imperial Japanese Navy had been decimated and the Allies held total air superiority over the home islands of Japan. Already there were efforts underway to try to arrange peace. Also, a demonstration of overwhelming American power did not require the atomic bombing of a major city full of innocent civilians. The bomb could have been exploded in a remote area where its power could have been demonstrated without massive loss of life. Likewise, the most often cited justification for the bombing, that it saved the lives of all those who would have died in an American invasion of the home islands (the majority of them Japanese) would only make sense if it was necessary to invade the home islands to end the war, which it clearly was not. Again, elements within Japan were already looking for a way to end the war and with the Allies holding total air and naval superiority over Japan, an invasion was not essential to force Japan to surrender. A total blockade could have produced the same outcome without using the atomic bomb.
All of that being said, while I oppose the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in fact, I cannot do so in theory. War is inherently cruel and it can never be made totally humane. In this case, the use of atomic weapons was, in my opinion, unnecessary. However, if conditions had been otherwise, if you are in a war and have a weapon that will save the lives of your people and bring the war to a swift and successful conclusion, it seems almost inhumane not to use it under such circumstances. For example, put the shoe on the other foot; if Japan had possessed the atomic bomb and the means of delivering it to American shores, with Japanese forces under heavy attack and Japan itself being bombed and starved, would Japan have hesitated to use the atomic bomb on the United States? It would have been terribly cruel, as its use on Hiroshima was, but if Japan using atomic weapons against the Americans would have saved Japanese lives and ended the threat to the Empire of Japan, wouldn't it have been cruel to have refused to do that? As is not uncommon, such moral and ethical questions are not always 'black and white'.
This is something to consider, because the focus and reaction to the atomic bombing in Japan can have very serious consequences in the present time and going forward due to its impact on Japanese-American relations. Does Japan desire to have the United States as a friend an ally or does the American use of the atomic bomb make this impossible? Recent polls have shown that the U.S. has a more positive view of Japan than Japan does of the United States and this sort of thing does not go unnoticed in America. The American people see elements on the left in Japan condemning American foreign policy, protesting America's military presence on Okinawa and they also see elements on the right condemning American past policies, calling American military personnel war criminals mostly for the bombing campaign and the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of this, combined with general weariness and similar attitudes from other countries have caused a steady increase in support for isolation or at least non-intervention among the American public.
Undoubtedly, in the past, such an attitude would have been to the benefit of Japan, but do the Japanese people truly consider it to be beneficial today? Is the pressing of the issue of the moral guilt of the United States in 1945 more important than the military support of the United States in defending Japan today? It is a serious question that should be considered because remarks of solidarity by politicians in Washington and Tokyo are not as important as the sympathy and goodwill of the voting public. If China were, for example, to land forces on the Senkaku Islands tomorrow and Japanese Self-Defense Forces fired on them in defense of Japanese territory, what would happen if China then declared war on Japan with both sides claiming to act in self-defense? Does Japan think it could stand alone against the immense numerical superiority of the Chinese, even with the higher quality and effectiveness of Japanese forces? Who else would be able or willing to come to the aid of Japan? What would Japan say to the American people who ask why they should sacrifice anything to defend Japan from China when this would have no real impact on American security at all? I would be pleased to see the situation in which Japan would require no assistance at all, but as things stand right now, with the vast numerical superiority of China, that does not seem to currently be the case.
Everyone in Japan should also keep in mind, in addition to the political attitudes in Japan, the political attitudes in the United States. It is a matter of fact that the side which most defends the use of the atomic bomb against Japan in the United States, the side which bristles the most whenever America or America's historical legacy is criticized, is the same side which is most adamant that the U.S. should come to the aid of Japan if China ever attempts to seize the Senkaku Islands by force. And that side is currently losing support. This is a serious matter and these questions should be given serious consideration as they have a definite impact on Japanese national security. For myself, there is no doubt that Japan was forced to go to war in 1941 and that the atomic bombing in 1945 was unnecessary. The questions remains though, whether that historical argument should outweigh the current state of Japanese-American relations. Does Japan value the alliance with the United States or not? It is a simple question but one that cannot be taken lightly.
0 Comments