Appealing for unselfish behaviour by governments is wishful thinking. We would not have armaments if we had no nations. The survival of the human race will require a world government and a much smaller world population than what we have now. What are our chances of getting that before we wreck everything?

Let's not forget history. Some three days after Hiroshima the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. this killed from 40.000 to 70.000 people depending on your source. The reason for this has been argued about at length, but most actions by the US have been self interested.

At last!
Somebody in the media acknowledges Hiroshima Day.
It has made me laugh for years that the world in general - the mainstream - seems to accept that Orwellian thinking - that goes like this - Peace through War - and of couse "Mutually Assured Destruction".

When Dr. Helen Caldicott entitled one of her books - "Nuclear Madness" - she was roundly attacked and belittled for her "emotional" "exaggerated" book title. They didn't even get the pun - as " MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)" was the actual name of the US and Russian policy at the time.

It is madness - the arms race, and especially the nuclear arms race. As was pointed out recently in the UK press - if an enemy country sends nuclear missiles to UK cities - then the UK's retaliation is of no benefit to the UK people. Nor is the initial attack any use to the attacker - who might now be in control of a conquered radioactive desolation.

The only "benefit" of nuclear weapons is to enrich a few people in the military/industrial/political complex - and to make little puppets, like Bush and Howard, feel as though they are (for a very brief time) important, strutting on the world media.

On August 5th, thousands of Melbourne citizens were out - at football, out at Federation Square enjoying Bananas in Pajamas at the ABC's party in Federation Square - out at all the media's well-promoted events - while a few hundred of us rallied in the CBD to remember Hiroshima, and protest against nuclear arms.

It looks as though we're going to need the new and independent media - to get some articles that really mean anything. It looks as if the mainstream media has to just fall into line with the major political parties and corporate Australia - and give the readers/viewers just "bread and circuses".

Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear

Great Article Tony and unique as this subject is a scarce topic in this weeks media.
one comment suggests that we have to rely on a sympathetic govt..
Well its popular compulsory voting that get's these sort of govts in power my friend..
I'm sure popular elections are totally cazy in the type of parliment we have today.
there needs to be no opposition, no ' parties' and no voting.
win the lottery and do a stint in the big house, ask yourself.. can you make worse decisions than this govt? of course not, and why.. because it's full of egotists that have gotten their by kowtowing and back scratching doing deals and whatever other method.
we need to get rid of this system of parliment altogether
and put one in that will minimise the chance of an egomaniac like Hawke etc and nitwits like Howard and lord help us Rudd...(marginally better than gung ho all the way with usa Beasley) ever gettin hold of the reins.
It looks so easy to me.. I wonder what I'm missing.. is it the revolution ' oops better not say that eh?' is that seditious..

nuclear weapons are just weapons. the danger is the people who control them. until people who complain about nuclear weapons start complaining about undemocratic governments, nothing will be achieved.

However crummy this system of government might seem to be,to DEMOS and others, too - the parliamentary system is surely the least crummy, and the best approach to democracy that is around. In Australia, the Howard government has worked continuously to centralise the executive power. No doubt Howard admires the Bush government's achievements in getting executive power in the USA, to triumph over the houses of assembly, and the judiciary.

Still - we do have Parliament, and the Senate.

We don't have to vote for TweedleHoward and TweedleRudd. Vote Green for those much-needed intelligent voices in government. Or even Democrats - who are supposed to "keep the bastards honest".
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Christina Macpherson

I recall one of GW Bush's supporters once saying that "the only sure way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them".

NUCLEAR DISARMERS DENY HISTORICAL LESSONS

1. If Japan had its own nuclear weapons in 1945 the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have occured.

The possession of nuclear weapons give nations the ability to retaliate in a way too horrible for their enemies to consider first use.

2. Its foolish to believe that the increasing number of countries that are now building nuclear weapons will now consider disarmament.

3. It is the balanced possession of nuclear weapons between potential enemies that has prevented nuclear war since the 1940s.

4. Japanese suffered terribly when nuclear bombed in 1945 but most Japanese people and most Australian peace campaigners are unaware of the more frequent killing of civilians by the Japanese in World War Two.

Japanese war crimes have been rightly termed the Asian Holocaust.

By the late 1930s, the rise of militarism in Japan created some similarities between the wider Japanese military culture and that of Nazi Germany's elite military personnel, such as those in the Waffen-SS. Japan also had a military secret police force, known as the Kempeitai, which resembled the Nazi Gestapo in its role in annexed and occupied countries.

The historian Chalmers Johnson, a sincere critic of American imperialism, has written that:

"It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.”

Many more people worldwide die from conventional murder (in peace or war) every year than people nuclear bombed in Japan.

Pete

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good examples for using nuclear weapons not banning them. Those two bomb drops probably shortened the war by two years and a couple million Japanese and American dead. But that was 60 years ago. Just when was the last nuke used that would precipitate this article? The lesson of Hiroshima was that if you have a nuke use it. It has a very calming effect on a very belligerent and aggressive people intent on ruling the world. The rest is simple leftist pillow hugging. Freedom, justice, honour, liberty, these are not things that are given. They are things fought for, died for, and diligence and care are necessary in keeping them. And sometimes more life must be given trying to see others have such concepts of value to express in their lives.
There's no putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. And because nuclear weapons exist is not insurance that they'll be used. Way too many disparate nations have nuclear capabilities. The idea of M.A.D might not be past it's time. Not until we've used up the uranium for energy anyway. See ya around the reactor.

Which peace full God fearing nation dropped that bomb again?

Dear Shonga
I'll answer your question. The USA. And they only dropped two of them. Small ones at that. They didn't go the whole way and destroy the whole Japanese nation, in spite of the horrific things the Japanese did to Westerners and other Asians during the 2nd World War.
And don't forget in the process, they probably saved the lives of a couple of million Japanese and American soldiers.
The naivety of the left never ceases to amaze me - they think concepts like freedom and democracy are handed out like cheezels. No, they have to be fought for, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

What a silly thing to argue about. Sixty two years ago and still a big deal? Get over it people.

Recently Nth Korea and Iran have been playing with the nuclear fire. Saddam Hussein before them, and look where it got him and his unfortunate country. If you really think nuclear weapons are bad, it would be far more sensible to try to dissuade these various nutjob nations from threatening the US (and it's allies) with them. What would you advise a disturbed relative if he/she announced "I'm gonna get me a gun and take the coppers on"? would it be something like "yeah go for it. Those pigs are unrepresentative swill" or more like "I can see how you feel (in your crazy mixed-up state) but I really think discretion would be the better part of valour"?

The facts are pretty clear; don't mess with them and they won't mess with you. Live your life in peace and you will get peace in return. Cheers.

The atomic bombing of Japan was a war crime. It happened, for the most part (see Sherwin "A World Destroyed" and Gar Alperovitz) in order to demonstrate to Stalin the power at Washington's disposal. Look at the documents as they talk about the advantages of an airburst. In terms of destruction the same thing could have been achieved by SAC firebombing, as Curtis Lemay himself concedes (which of course was also a war crime). Throughout the cold war there were a number of very close calls that almost led to Armageddon (see Scott Sagan, "The Limits of Safety") we are still here due to good luck rather than good management. States have in fact given up nuclear weapons; South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan. Others have reversed programmes, i.e. South Korea. In fact if the theory of normal accidents applies to nuclear command and control, as Sagan plausibly argues it does, then a large scale nuclear exchange is inevitable.

Ultimately, there is a disconnect between nuclear physics and the state system. Getting rid of nukes is good and should be supported but won't solve the problem. To solve the problem means getting rid of war itself, not weapons (whatever they are) and that means getting rid of the state system as we know it.

It's been long known that there was a frantic race to drop the bombs on Japan before the war ended, not to end the war itself.

At that time Japan was effectively beaten, almost out of fuel, and was desperately looking for a way to surrender honorably.

Meanwhile, the Russians were returning from the European front and preparing to attack Japan from the north. The Japanese were terrified that their country would be partioned by the Allies, like East and West Germany.

Their culture plus the god-like status of the Emperor made a normal surrender difficult and would have led to severe domestic social problems afterward.

The US scientists and military also desperately wanted to field test their new weapons and also send a veiled threat to the USSR.

That's why two bombs were dropped - two versions to be evaluated.

One bomb would have been more than enough and a military target would also have made more sense than two primarily civilian ones.
If a single bomber could penetrate that far into Japan by that time, conventional weapons may have worked just as well in destroying the morale of the population.

This act gave the Japanese an excuse to surrender against horrific odds and the US used the excuse that they were trying to shorten the war. The war could have ended in a matter of weeks in any case. Both stories have supported each other ever since but the background to the timing and the circumstances are never openly discussed.

Technically, it was a supreme act of terror against non-combatants on one side and the tragic result of inflexible cultural constraints on the other.

It was certainly never any sort of "noble victory" on our behalf and should never be seen that way.

It was a truly shameful historical event and suggestions that it was completely justifiable are a little short of the mark.

A few pro-bombers have argued that dropping these bombs and killing 10's of thousands of civilians, was better than drawing out the war and killing a couple of million soldiers. Another arguement has been that the Japs did terrible things, so our side wasnt so bad after all.

This doesnt sit well with me. I recognise that in some circumstances there are agressive nations that need to be brought back into line. I've had a number of relatives go off to wars, and some not come back, and seen the life-long scars that this inflicts on their families (including those of the returned). But basically we in the West try to position ourselves as good and compassionate. This means in part not doing things to others simply in retaliation. Eg they kill our women and children, so that makes it ok to kill theirs. From that logic its a very slippery slope down the same hole.

The dropping of those bombs constituted deliberate targetting of civilians. I honestly believe that it is better to have 10 times as many deaths to end the war, if they are the deaths of soldiers, than to deliberatey kill civilians. If civilians are accidently killed, that it bad enough, but deliberate actions like that are just deplorable. All it did was to make the US the bully, not the saviour. Its standing world-wide has been on a steady decline ever since - ever wonder WHY its such a target. No-one likes a bully-boy.

Wobbles and Country Gal,

There is another view on this

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

Markob and Wobbles,

Your contention that the Japanese were about to surrender is only a theory. It is irrelevant to assume what the Japanese might have done. Wars cannot be fought on that basis. Thousands of people were dying daily. Japan had not surrendered. The Truman administration had a weapon that could end the war. They didn’t look at the ethicality of dropping bombs on civilians, as EVERYONE did it.

Wobbles said “If a single bomber could penetrate that far into Japan by that time, conventional weapons may have worked just as well in destroying the morale of the population”

This is absolute rubbish. The British could ‘take it’ during the blitz, the Germans never surrendered because of bombing, despite whole towns being destroyed. There is absolutely no evidence that the Japanese couldn’t have withstood large scale conventional bombings

Wobbles complaints that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, is incorrect. Both were centres of Japanese war production.

If as you say it was the first shot in the cold war, why did Eisenhower prevent the Allies from taking Berlin?

Churchill definitely thought that the Russians would become an enemy, but at that stage the Americans were prepared to give Stalin the benefit of the doubt. After all they had shipped billions of dollars in weapons to Russia and were continuing to do so right up until wars end. In fact the US asked for Russian help to beat the Japanese, as a ‘beat Germany first’ strategy had been agreed among the allies.

Yes the SAC might have been able to take out Hiroshima and Nagasaki with conventional weapons, but this would not have provided the shock necessary to cause the Japanese to surrender. It would have cost a lot of American lives. Something America was loathe to do, especially since Japan was the aggressor in this war and many Americans had already paid the ultimate price.

This is an ends versus means argument. In saving millions of lives, hundreds of thousands were lost. That America was determined that it not be the lives of US servicemen is hardly surprising

Hiroshima was a minor strategic target and the bomb was dropped pretty far from the military area in any case.

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members.

Some documents can be found at –
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
Note the bombing order issued to General Spaatz

Military Opinions –

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” – General Eisenhower

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

If the Germans dropped two A-bombs on England and lost the war anyway, I think the act would have been classified as a war crime.

Wobbles,

If you read the link I provided, you would see a summary of an argument by a historian called Frank. He claims that revisionist arguments like yours have been shot out of the water by the release of information that was kept top secret until the 1990s. The US had broken the Japanese codes during the war, and only a few Americans at the very top were given access to some of them. This did not even include the vice president or any of the people associated with the Manhattan project. The so-called "Magic" or "Ultra" reports that were given to Truman have now been released (and have not been denied by the Japanese).

Frank claims on the basis of decoded Japanese diplomatic messages that have now been released that the Japanese had no intention of accepting an unconditional surrender. The military government knew that they could not win, but thought that they could wear down the American public and politicians to the point that they would accept a negotiated surrender that would leave the militarists in charge; this was far more than just wanting a figurehead emperor. Their official policy was to go on fighting to the bitter end. Their actual plan was to keep fighting until they got what they wanted. The casualties involved in taking Okinawa were horrendous, both on the part of the American troops and even more on the part of the Japanese troops and civilians. Frank thinks that any other politician who might have conceivably been president instead of Truman would have also ordered those bombs dropped and that it had nothing to do with the Soviet Union.

Divergence,
I’m aware of the breaking of the Japanese codes during the war and this is the basis of yet another contentious argument by some historians that Australia knew as early as 1942 that it was never in danger of invasion by the Japanese.

For what it’s worth, here’s another perspective that puts a slightly different slant on Richard B Frank’s opinion.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/08/dropping-big-one.html

Also, according to historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, the surrender was more due the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the Emperor. Many of the Japanese military elite were still in public denial over the possibility of losing the war, even after the bombs were dropped, so opinions vary considerably, even among “experts”.

Nevertheless the terms revisionist and apologist are loosely used on both sides of most arguments.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between all these opinions.

In the context of historical revisionism, the lesser-known stories of what happened after the war to all the pre-invasion weapons that were being stockpiled on Okinawa, or some of the research from the infamous Japanese Unit 731 are far more interesting in how our world has been shaped since that time.

DEMOS, it is nothing short of sad, infuriating, ignorant and dangerously complacent to say "nuclear weapons are just weapons".

They are like nothing that humankind has ever faced before.

Are you concerned about climate change? - consider a nuclear winter from even a fraction of today's 27,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of which remain on 'hair trigger alert' status.

From tourism, economics and farming, to refugees, whaling, forests, endangered species, all unborn generations - until the nuclear threat is removed these are ALL at risk.

http://www.icanw.org

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

"I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'...."
- General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War 2 and later US President.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

It's really too bad the Americans dropped the a-bomb. If they hadn't we would now know just how long after Aug.6, 1945 it took the Japanese to surrender with out conditions and just how many more millions of lives would have been lost. Unfortunately we are left with the reality that it did happen and Japan did surrender. Not if, but, or maybe, did, period.
The puerile arguments through twisting and turning of "facts" and "quotes" to justify or condemn the actions of the Americans or what "maybe" the Japanese would have done, mean not to the object of the lesson.
Nuclear weapons are very effective at stopping a nation intent on hemispheric domination and who used the most barbaric behavior to attain that goal. The Germans had begun nuclear research in the 30's and had a jump on the U.K. and America. Lets not wonder if the Japanese would have eventually been beaten into submission by American industry in lieu of the bomb. Lets wonder how Australia would look today after the Japanese dropped a couple of nukes to better enslave the pacific. Or isn't all speculation fair argument?

Few points Atom.

1. Eisenhower was supreme commander in EUROPE at the time. He never fought the Japanese. He was not on the joint chiefs of staff.

2. Eisenhower was a politician from the very beginning and was more of an administrative chief than a military supremo

3. Its is hardly surprising that after the billions of dollars spent on the Marshall plan rebuilding the Axis powers, inflammatory statements by generals were avoided.

4. there was as least as much opinion that the Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally. So Truman felt fully justified in not taking the risk. He had it in his power to end the war immediately. We can never know whether this act saved lives or not and it is pointless to speculate

5. we can all agree that it should never happen again.