 |
| Trinity A-bomb test in New Mexico, 1945 |
In the new movie 'Oppenheimer' - which we saw at the cinema 2 weeks ago - the famous nuclear physicist at one point is seen warning that mere "witnesses" to a "test bomb" would only see ‘an enormous nuclear firecracker.’ This transpired in the midst of a discussion - with Gen. Leslie R. Groves and others - as to whether a mere demo test of the A-bomb would be preferable dropping an actual A-bomb on a Japanese target city. The idea was to try to spare lives and hope that the mere sight of the massive blast and awesome destruction - say visited on a test island - would be enough to get the Japanese to surrender. But Oppenheimer wasn't buying, noting that from the distance needed neither Hirohito, Tojo or any Japanese commanders would be suitably impressed. They'd just continue fighting after seeing a "nuclear firecracker."
That take, has since been validated after recovered diaries and records of Japanese officials strongly indicate that the Japanese military would have ignored such a test shot. The military hierarchy, which controlled the Japanese government, would have regarded such a peace offering as a sign of weakness and a further incentive to fight to the death. This was already enshrined in the code of Bushido, meaning any kind of surrender was viewed as a disgrace worse than death. Better to fight to the last man than lay down arms to an enemy.
Exaggeration? Unfortunately, no. The U.S. learned, from intercepted cables, that Japan was waiting for the American invasion with a million civilian defenders and 7,000 kamikaze suicide planes. Realistic estimates ranged from 200,000 to one million Americans killed, which were in the neighborhood of the estimates my WW II vet dad (who had fought in the Pacific) had heard.
Fearing such enormous casualties, U.S. Navy and Army Air Force officials wanted to blockade and bomb Japan into submission, which would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths from starvation and disease. Thus, there were no good choices to continued Japanese recalcitrance. This might sound nuts but bear in mind these military fanatics were not utterly irrational. By massively bleeding the Americans, the military leaders of Japan hoped they could avoid an American occupation of their nation—not to mention trials for their own war crimes.
I realize and appreciate that this might not go down well for all those who've been at the forefront of recent moralist yapping that it was "wrong" to use atomic bombs, given the Japanese "would have soon surrendered". However, a reality check is in order. Fact: even after the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs—on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9 —the Japanese weren’t prepared to surrender unconditionally.
They still demanded that the U.S. allow Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese regarded as a deity, to remain sovereign. Japanese military leaders wanted to fight on even after the second bomb fell on Nagasaki, and some officers began fomenting a coup to take over the Imperial Palace. Because of this resistance, Gen. Carl “Tooey” Spaatz - Army Air Force commander in charge of bombing Japan - suggested to Truman dropping a third atomic bomb, this time on Tokyo—taking out some 20 square miles. Of course, it wouldn't have been timely enough given only 3 A-bombs had been completed in the time by the Manhattan Project: the one for the Trinity test, and the other two actually dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
Besides, Tokyo had already been burned out by American fire-bombing raids in March and May. Spaatz was in effect proposing a demonstration. He wanted Japanese leaders to be in the “scare radius” of the bomb—close enough to see the flash but not so close as to be killed. But again, no distant demonstration would have worked to convince the hard core Japanese military fanatics. Not even the dire effects of radiation would have convinced them that surrender was preferable.
No surprise that in Washington Spaatz’s idea was initially rejected, but it apparently caught President Harry S. Truman’s attention. According to a report from the British embassy in Washington, at about noon on Aug. 14, as the Japanese appeared to be dithering over whether to surrender, Truman “remarked sadly” to British officials “that he now had no alternative but to order the atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo.” A third bomb - Truman had been told - would be ready for delivery by Aug. 20. In fact, it might have been up to a month beyond that.
Fortunately,
a few hours later Truman learned that the Japanese had accepted U.S. surrender terms. A small peace faction, led by Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori
Togo, had finally persuaded the emperor to defy the militarists. Hirohito would
remain on the throne, but he would be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander,
Gen. Douglas Mac-Arthur, not the other way around.
Oppenheimer subsequently hoped that the horror of the atomic bomb would make the world renounce nuclear war, hence his now famous quote at the time, e.g.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ImgkNPpJlJc?feature=shareIn 1945, only the U.S. had the bomb. Now nine nations have nuclear weapons far more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Even in a “limited” nuclear war between the U.S. and China (or Israel and Iran, or India and Pakistan), computer designed wargames predict that millions of people would die. In an all-out nuclear war, say triggered if Russia were to use tactical nukes on NATO nations, it would be the ultimate hell Oppenheimer worried about. One captured in the 1983 Brit movie 'Threads' e.g.
Threads (1984) - Bombing Scene - YouTube
With the 'Doomsday' clock now set at 90 seconds to midnight, let us sincerely hope that fate does not unfold. But it will depend on all of us to stop it. I highly recommend seeing the movie Oppenheimer while it is still showing.
‘Oppenheimer’ doesn’t show us Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s an act of rigor, not erasure
by Robert C. Koehler | August 11, 2023 - 6:37am | permalink
by Brandon Gage | March 1, 2022 - 9:11am | permalink
by Gerard Boyce | August 9, 2023 - 6:04am | permalink
Excerpt:
Last month saw the release of the highly anticipated blockbuster movie Oppenheimer. Based on a biography of the head of the Manhattan Project, the U.S.’s secret World War II program to develop the atomic bomb, this movie has received positive reviews from critics. Cillian Murphy, the actor who plays the main character in the eponymously titled movie, in particular has been praised for his performance and the stellar job he does in capturing the pathos that haunted the title character after the bomb had been successfully detonated.
Although no doubt deserving of the acclaim he has garnered for his role, enshrouding his character in tragedy and investing the film with melodrama carries the risk of conveying the message that we in our collective humanity are victims who are somehow helpless in the face of this powerful technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment