Myths Surrounding The Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki
By Timothy J. Freeman
08 August, 2003
The essay Remembering Hiroshima & Nagasaki by David Krieger touched me deeply on this morning. I've always felt some connection with what happened on this day in 1945. I've always felt some sense of responsibility and sadness regarding this day. At least I think I've always felt this since I was about six years old when I first learned of what happened on that day twelve years exactly before my birth. I guess being born on the sixth of August has always marked my life with this somber sense of seriousness of purpose. I think it is perhaps what turned me into a philosopher. I think I've always just had to try to understand why, why it is we live in a world where such terrible things happen, why it is we live in a world that will forever be marked by the tragedy of that day and the fear of nuclear catastrophe to come.
After that initial childhood horrifying revelation many birthdays passed with maybe only a fleeting thought of Hiroshima. Like the vast majority of Americans I had been persuaded of the tragic necessity of the bombing. It didn't really lessen the horror, or the need to try and understand why, but it did enable me to celebrate birthdays perhaps a little bit more like other folks. But for the last decade or so my birthday has always been tinged with sadness as I've come to understand how unnecessary was Hiroshima and then, of course, Nagasaki. But on this day, my forty-sixth birthday, after all that has transpired in this past year, and after reading in Mr. Krieger's essay that even General Eishenhower at the time thought the bombing of Hiroshima unnecessary, I am simply overwhelmed by the most profound unutterable sadness.
In his essay, Krieger writes of the myths that have grown up around the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Underlying these myths, he finds "a more general myth that US leaders can be expected to do what is right and moral. To conclude that our leaders did the wrong thing by acting immorally at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slaughtering civilian populations, flies in the face of this widespread understanding of who we are as a people." I cannot help but note how painfully relevant this demythologizing of America is today.
I manage to just get by teaching a few philosophy classes now and then at the University of Hawaii here on the Big Island of Hawaii. Each semester I always begin my Introduction to Western Philosophy class by shocking the students by telling them that this class will likely be the most important class they will ever take in their college careers. Of course this sounds totally ridiculous to everyone as the majority of Americans have never come close to a philosophy class and most, if they do, are taking it only to fulfill an elective requirement—or perhaps it just fits a convenient time slot in their schedule. For most Americans its preposterous of course to think that what we discuss in philosophy class is relevant at all to their lives. It is certainly not likely to lead to a job or any stable income as I can well attest. But philosophy, "the love of wisdom," really is, I tell my students, the key to democracy. Of course, it's a commonplace since Jefferson that "education is the key to democracy." But just what sort of education is this key? Is it really enough just to have the technological education that will enable one to get a job and raise a family? Philosophers since Plato have had grave doubts about democracy, Plato ranking it next to last in his hierarchy of government. Plato's skepticism about democracy, however, can be attributed to a skepticism about the capacity of the majority for wisdom, a product of the ancient world view in which not all of us are created equal. Our democracy is founded on the contrary modern world view that all of us are created equal, the view enshrined in our Declaration of Independence in those words Jefferson borrowed from the great Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. The only defense of democracy against Plato's criticism, the only hope of democracy, lies in the hope that the people can become in some measure wise. Despite Plato's criticism one can find, in that very criticism, the key to democracy. Philosophy, for Plato, is the most important thing for both the individual and the state. Famously, he has Socrates say in The Apology that the "unexamined life is not worth living." The reason Socrates says this is that a life without philosophical examination runs a great risk of injustice and injustice, according to Socrates, is worse than death, it does irreparable harm to the soul, not only of the individual but also the state.
There was perhaps no greater demonstration of the importance of a philosophical education than the Introduction to Western Philosophy class I taught this spring. For two weeks just as the war was breaking out, from March 10th to the 21st I had my students examine "Just War Theory" and the case for war against Iraq. I had told my students from day one that there was never an obligation on their part to agree with the instructor, never a necessity that they even come to agreement amongst themselves. The only thing I asked of them is that they at least be able to examine some difficult questions, and find some way to have a healthy conversation about the difficult issues that divide us as a people. Some people, of course, dismiss the whole idea of a just war and of just war theory. There are really only three positions regarding justice and war. One could be concerned about justice and argue that no war is just—and thus one is a pacifist and should therefore oppose all war. Or, as an ex-colonel once told me—"wars are not properly classified as just or unjust, only won or lost, won with overwhelming force or lost with timidity." This view, which he later disavowed, simply dismisses a concern with justice and thus, if it were the position of our country, would make America no better than the worst nations in human history. The third position I think is where most Americans would at least like to think they adhere to. Neither pacifists nor warriors unconcerned about justice, most Americans think that America is guided by a concern for justice, and that if she must go to war, it must be a just war. Thus we come to the philosophical question—what, if anything, makes a war a just war?
There is a 2000 year old history within the tradition of Western thought concerned with this philosophical question. This history stretches perhaps all the way back to Cicero, is shaped by the Christian philosophers Augustine and Aquinas, is developed further by secular Enlightenment thinkers, and is finally enshrined in international law at the end of the WWII through essentially two documents, both the products of American statesmanship, the UN Charter and the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Documents. There are a number of different ways of summarizing the basic principles, but the most important and basic principle is Just Cause, and the only just cause recognized throughout this tradition and now enshrined in international law is self-defense. One must be responding to either an actual attack upon oneself or a neighbor or friend-state, or an imminent threat of attack. There simply is no other just cause for war.
In that class I had my students examine and discuss the basic principles of just war theory. I had them read President Bush's State of the Union address, Secretary Powell's presentation before the United Nations, and about a dozen articles from Middle-East experts and intelligence professionals examining the case for war. We spent considerable time examining and discussing the all-important concept of imminent threat. I believe most of my students understood quite well that it was not enough just to possess weapons of mass destruction, that for a threat to really be imminent there must also be evidence of the delivery systems for those weapons as well as the likelihood of intent to use them. They understood that the UN weapons inspectors had already concluded that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, that it had been completely dismantled by 1998. They had already read just as the war was breaking out that the President's claim about the nuclear material purchased from Africa was based on forged documents. They understood that even if Iraq possessed some fraction of the chemical weapons which we once gave them the materials to produce, that they did not have the missiles that could constitute a delivery system. By the end of our two week examination, my students also understood that there was no connection between Iraq and 911, that the Sunni Baathist regime in Iraq would not likely be giving biological weapons to Shiites whom they had repressed for so long. Thus, even if there were any remaining stockpile of the easily degrading biological weapons that we sold them the materials to produce so many years ago, that they didn't really have the delivery system to constitute an imminent threat.
We also spent considerable time talking about the problem of terrorism and the question of whether Saddam Hussein should be considered a suicidal terrorist or just a brutal dictator. Most of them understood I think that there is a big difference between stateless, desperate, religious fanatics and a man firmly ensconced in power in a country sitting on three trillion dollars worth of oil. What motive would Saddam Hussein have in launching an attack against the United States, or even Israel, when it was abundantly obvious that such an attack would be suicidal? It became painfully obvious to most of my students that there was never any imminent threat and thus no real just cause for war against Iraq. I have to admit it was a challenging experience not only for the students but for me as I watched it dawn upon their faces that their leaders were not acting morally in leading our nation to war. It was not something to relish watching this myth about America that Krieger writes about dissolve there upon the classroom floor.
I'm sure my students haven't been too surprised by the way things have turned out, the missing weapons of mass destruction, the famous "16 words" in the State of the Union address. I saw one of my students the other day and he remarked about how everything we talked about has now been coming out. The 16 words, of course, were never even the half of it. Another of my students in her paper found even more important words that so far I have not seen any of the media focus upon. On the one hand the President tried to suggest that Iraq was an imminent threat, and now we know how much distortion and lies were used to persuade the American people of that threat. But on the other hand Bush simply dismissed the idea that we even need to wait for an imminent threat. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" Capitalizing yet again on 911 and the fear and hysteria of the people, Bush simply dismissed the entire tradition of just war theory and the very basis of international law. This is really was what was most disturbing about that speech. Underlying that speech is the whole immoral doctrine of preemptive strike, the New National Security Strategy unveiled last fall.
At the end of the two weeks, that Friday after the war had started, one young woman stood up in class and remarked how sad it was that the whole nation hadn't been taking this class, for if they had there is no way we would have gone to war. I don't say that with any sense of self- aggrandizement; it is only a comment about the state of our democracy and the importance of philosophical examination. As a nation we failed to adequately have a discussion about the justice of war and the case for war against Iraq. We remained blinded by the myth about America, too confident that we were on the side of justice we turned our back on justice and have done irreparable harm to the soul of the nation.
Now, of course, the American people are only just now beginning to comprehend the tragedy that has befallen our nation. The casualties mount daily, the anger and frustration at our occupation of Iraq grows daily. The war against Iraq has probably proved to be the greatest recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden. We are spending a billion dollars a week on an occupation of Iraq that seems more and more each day like falling into a trap of quicksand.
Today is my birthday, but it is not a happy birthday.
Timothy J. Freeman is Adjunct Professor of Philosophy. The University of Hawaii at Hilo