Ward Wilson has written a piece for the Chicago Tribune on how Hiroshima didn’t cause the Japanese to surrender, and how nuclear weapons do not win wars.
He points to the “cultural divide” aspect of talking about nuclear weapons… and how it misses the point.
Last week was the 63rd anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. People argue a lot about Hiroshima, but often what they’re really arguing about is whether America is good or bad.
….
What gets lost in the shouting is the really important question: Did the atomic bomb work? We assume it did, because the Japanese decided to surrender three days after Hiroshima. But it makes sense to look more closely, because almost everything we think about nuclear weapons–how impressive they are, how useful they are, how necessary they are–depends on Hiroshima.
He goes on to say:
It turns out, though, that Hiroshima didn’t win the war. As historians do more research, it becomes clear that what really shocked the Japanese government was the declaration of war by the Soviet Union early in the morning of the same day we bombed Nagasaki. That was the day the Japanese declared martial law. That was the day they decided to meet to discuss surrender. That was the day the military talked privately about overthrowing the emperor. Nagasaki occurred in the afternoon–after they were already meeting to discuss surrender–and they largely ignored it.
The simplicity of his thesis is shocking to me: why isn’t this taught in schools if it is indeed true? It’s horrifying that we can go on perpetuating the notion that the bomb won the war; perhaps because it’s a myth both the US & Japan have bought into, it’s a lot harder to debunk despite the evidence being there.
Update [2008-8-12 14:13:34 by eeblet]: Fun extra – from Ward Wilson’s blog:
When I say I’m working on nuclear weapons issues they almost always get this “I think I hear my mother calling” look on their faces.
