Eighty years after the atomic bombings of Japan, this article explores the clash between nuclear disarmament ideals and the harsh realities of global security.
Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Dome

Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Dome bathed in the light of the setting sun. (©Sankei by Kazuya Kamogawa)

As we mark the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings against Japan, discussions on the significance of nuclear weapons have also taken place in the United States' capital. 

In contrast to Japan's idealistic call for their abolition, the prevailing American stance remains focused on the effect of nuclear weapons to deter wars.

The most notable commentary came from George Will, a prominent conservative political commentator, as the anniversary of the August 6 US atomic bombing of Hiroshima approached.

In his commentary published in The Washington Post, Will argued that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "effectively ended 'the first modern conflict in which far more civilians were killed than combatants.'" This, he suggested, however, was a sign of "moral regression." 

Moral Costs and Justifications

As an example of this decline, he pointed to the killing of 100,000 civilians on a single night in the Tokyo air raids, just five months before the two atomic bombings.

But on the question of whether dropping the atomic bomb was justified, Will quoted Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the plane that bombed Hiroshima. "I hoped until the very end that Japan would surrender," Tibbets said. By doing so, the author conveyed a view largely in line with the US consensus that the bombs were used to end the war with Japan sooner.

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, where many gathered on the morning of August 6 to honor the victims and pray for peace. (©Sankei by Kotaro Hikono)

On this point, Will drew on an article by renowned British historian Antony Beevor published this summer in a major American foreign affairs magazine. 

Beevor wrote that Japan's military government was "prepared to sacrifice millions of Japanese civilians by forcing them to resist an Allied invasion." Atomic bombings, therefore, he argued, were carried out to prevent such losses.

The Future Threat

What further drew attention in Will's commentary was his concern that there could be a third use of nuclear weapons, eight decades following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

He reminded that it would not be that challenging for even a poor nation to develop nuclear weapons if determined. Will also noted that the declining reliability of the American "nuclear umbrella" could provide a similar incentive "to nations from South Korea to Poland."

Real-World Nuclear Risks

Meanwhile, as these fundamental debates over nuclear weapons were unfolding, developments in real-world international security also warranted attention. 

On August 1, President Donald Trump announced that he had ordered two US Navy nuclear submarines to be "positioned in appropriate regions" in anticipation of a potential attack on Russia. It was a move that could have been seen as an expression of the Trump administration's "peace through strength" policy in response to repeated Russian nuclear provocations.

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin (©Getty via Kyodo)

Reacting to the US proposal for further economic sanctions against Moscow over its refusal to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, warned, "President Trump should remember the 'Dead Hand.'" The "Dead Hand" refers to the Russian military's automatic nuclear retaliation system.

Trump saw these remarks as a nuclear threat against the US and ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines in response. "Just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances," the President later explained.

Reality v. Idealism 

The exchanges between Washington and Moscow highlight the reality that nuclear weapons continue to serve as tools of deterrence and intimidation within the foreign policies and international security strategies of both nations. 

This stands in stark contrast to the idealistic view held by some in Japan, who advocate for the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons.

RELATED: 

Author: Yoshihisa Komori, Associate Correspondent in Washington, The Sankei Shimbun

(Read this in Japanese)

Leave a Reply