Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Hiroshima:
How the Ethics of Contemporary Warfare
Created a Human Disaster
Stewart Wenner
WRT 105
“Hypervisibility” Essay
11/17/08
Stewart Wenner - 1
Humans are used to disasters; they have readily become a part of our lives,
especially as we deform the earth more and more, provoking all sorts of rather
unnatural “natural” disasters. While many people may think of natural disasters
when the topic of human tragedies arises, one must take the time to realize that
some of the most horrific disasters actually are completely man-made: those which
occur during wartime. As war has developed and become more and more
sophisticated, the amount of destruction has risen exponentially; new weapons and
methods have been created that make it easier than ever to take the lives of
the side as “justified”, is the attack on Japan at the end of World War II which
essentially decimated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the United States
government maintains the claim today that the intention was to avoid civilian
casualties during these attacks, numerous accounts from scientists and experts
support nearly the opposite idea. This massive oversight, as well as the general
attitude of US military attacks, suggest that there was little the nation would avoid
doing if it meant victory in the end. The massive and unique destruction caused by
the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki raises serious questions about the
ethics of contemporary warfare; the fact that there is still debate about the military
civilians were killed or irreparably damaged suggests that, at least in the United
significant disasters.
representation of the damage and injury caused is quite powerful and able to
summarize – without words – exactly what happened and what the results were. The
Stewart Wenner - 2
image that stands out as presenting this idea best is one of two survivors of the
blast in Hiroshima. They are shown sitting in some sort of building, possibly a relief
expressions are hard to read, their hands are gripping tightly onto some sort of
blanket, signaling more visually that they may be stressed or anxious about what
happened. Their hands appear clamped onto the blanket as if it is the only thing left
environment. Another very important aspect of the photograph is the unique burns
that appear on the pair’s faces, arms, and hands. While it is unclear as to exactly
what caused it, based on the circumstances, they appear to be “flash burns” due to
the massive heat given off by the atomic blast. The two people are still living and
breathing, but they have been significantly changed. It is important to note that the
two are clearly non-military, based on their apparent older age and the fact that
their clothing is casual and civilian-like. Being drawn to the three focal points of the
image (the hands and each of their faces) gives the viewer a much more personal
view of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and reveals that much more
damage was done than simply to military targets. Many other images similar to this
one exist, showing the injuries – both physical and emotional – sported by the
citizens of the Japanese cities after the dropping of the bombs. One very noticeable
and very important common thread between a good number of these photos is the
presence of people from the two extremes of age: both infants and young children
as well as older people such as in the picture shown. Seeing the number of
defenseless civilians damaged by the bombs sends a much different message about
the meaning and the goal of the attacks than do images of collapsed buildings or
Based on the actions of the United States military in World War II, their goal
was clearly to simply “win” the conflict, with very little regard to civilian casualties.
When a military power is arriving at a decision as to what enemy target they will
attack in a certain instance, one would think that they would take a variety of
factors into consideration. For example, they would need information on any
military structures, defenses, or troops in the area, each which may make the target
worth attacking. The US military certainly went through this process, but looked at
different factors than one might expect. According to a report made by a committee
(including the Commanding General and members of the Air Force) whose sole task
was selecting targets for the atomic bomb, two of the most important criteria for
the mission were the “selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on
the Japanese people” and the “moral effect upon the enemy” (“Bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki”). While they did specify the concept of a “military effect”,
potentially be seen as a military effect if they were contributing to the war effort
(though they may not even know it). The fact that the population density or
presence of civilians was not even mentioned is rather striking, and leads one to
a large number of civilians. The number and density of civilians in the area –
especially when using a weapon such as an atomic bomb, which has no ability to
pick and choose who it destroys – should have been considered, but was apparently
overlooked. This is very relevant in the Japanese cities, as they were both packed
Stewart Wenner - 4
full of civilians.
suggested by the United States military. President Truman himself was either lied
wrote in his diary before the bombs were dropped that he wanted “to use [the
bomb] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not
women and children”, and that “the target will be a purely military one” (Truman).
Even if this is what Truman really wanted to have happen, women and children did
end up targeted, and the target was by no means purely military. In the official
written order to use the bomb against Japanese cities that was eventually approved
by Truman, there was no mention of making sure the final targets were mainly
military. In fact, one clause stated that “additional bombs will be delivered…as soon
as made ready by the project staff” (Groves). Clearly, this rather open-ended order
was designed to give the US military the option to do whatever it thought necessary
with the bomb, even if it meant great civilian casualties. In reality, “it is an
indisputable fact that most of the Japanese casualties of the two atomic attacks of
August, 1945, were civilians living in the two cities that were destroyed by the
atomic bombs” (Mahoney). Between 1945 and 1947, over 250,000 Japanese citizens
died as a result of the bomb, not to mention the long-lasting radiological and
genetic damage done to many of the survivors. These people did not even have a
chance to get out of the cities or to move themselves out of harm’s way, which
supports the idea that the intention was to eliminate the civilians as well. The only
warning the Japanese received was a very vague and general threat; Truman wrote
in his diary “we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and
save lives” (Truman). This certainly does not qualify as sufficient warning. As one
expert said, “All human beings within a two-mile radius of the [blast’s] epicenter
victims died in the following months and years” (Mahoney). This description helps to
provide an idea of exactly what kind of damage the atomic bomb was capable of, as
well as the fact that the residents of the Japanese citizens did not have a chance of
bombing”, an American military officer stated that “ ‘the 20th Air Force is
systematically bombing out [Japanese cities] with the prime purpose of not leaving
one stone lying upon another.’ “ (Mahoney). As this shows, the Americans were not
singling out military targets or anything of significance while planning their attacks;
rather, they just destroyed everything in their path. Not only was general
destruction the main goal, but it was one which gave some US military officers
obvious satisfaction; according to one investigator, there was one “ ‘Major General
Curtis LeMay, who gloated that 100,000 people in Tokyo had 'scorched and boiled
raids’ “ (Mahoney). This rather shocking quote displays the attitude of some
American officers: the Japanese were simply the enemy, no matter what.
Stewart Wenner - 5
On the other side, the Japanese were comparatively merciful and arguably
wartime. Some of this was certainly due to the differences in military size as well as
the location of the theaters of war, but one figure stands out nonetheless: the very
minimal civilian casualties in the United States. It may be claimed that the Japanese
didn’t have a chance to harm American civilians, and that if they had the chance,
they would have. But looking at other examples of Japanese attacks on the United
States supports the idea that they weren’t buying into the concept of total war.
Pearl Harbor is a clear and perhaps the best example of Japanese intentions. The
military targets” (Mahoney). There is no question that the American base at Pearl
Harbor was solely a military target, not anything like the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Very few American civilians (less than one hundred) were killed during
the attack, and the strike was limited to one specific, contained area. This is
completely opposite from the atomic bombs, which eradicated entire squire miles
without regard to their targets. While Truman used the bomb to accomplish a
political objective, “the Japanese aerial assault on Pearl Harbor was, in actual fact,
the specific military objective against the United States of the Japanese
make a point and speed up the war’s conclusion, while the Japanese followed
been confronted – by the United Nations, for example – but is extremely difficult to
control, regulate, or observe in some cases. The dropping of the atomic bombs
happened before some of this regulation was put through, resulting in a direct
attack on innocent civilian lives. The United States government had a very good
Stewart Wenner - 6
idea of what the bomb was capable of, but chose to ignore the numerous warnings
working on the Manhattan Project, stated outright that “the war has to be brought
however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present
circumstances” (Szilard). Szilard and his colleagues also acknowledged that the
main purpose of the bomb would be to completely annihilate cities, and they
obviously disagreed with this usage. This annihilation must have been what the
United States desired, because they went right ahead with the attack.
The only thing most of these people were guilty of was being Japanese, and
living in Japan. In wartime, people of one group tend to turn the opposing group into
simply “the enemy”, as beings that are almost non-human and completely alien.
After this is done, any sort of attack is usually justified in their minds: “Once people
are defined as being outside [our] universe, offenses against them are not violations
of the normative order and do not trigger criminal sanctions. Excluding a group from
warfare. Even as the world has become significantly more connected and
and have served to create harsh divides between cultures and ideologies. This,
without a doubt, happened between the United States and Japan during World War
II. Looking at the Japanese internment camps, for example, people from Japan were
discriminated against and displaced from their normal roles in society in the United
States. They were portrayed as evil and un-American, and these were people who
were part of American society. In fact, “these Japanese Americans, half of whom
were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or
any factual basis, in bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed
guards” (Ina). Even though there was nothing to accuse these people of, they were
discriminated against based on their ethnicity. Thus, one can only imagine the true
Japan. President Truman himself called the Japanese “savages, ruthless, merciless
and fanatic”, revealing just how biased American society and government had
such were dehumanized to the point that any attack against them – even an atomic
bomb dropped on a mainly civilian target – was easily justified by the American
Japanese cities were not even legal; one line in the treaty reads that “the attack or
when an illegal bombing is not only performed but also defended. The atomic
attacks truly were bordering on genocide if they had continued, in that the US was
paying no heed as to who was being killed, as long as they were Japanese. The
usage of the atomic bombs was essentially a threat to the Japanese, telling them
that their national extinction – a true genocide – was completely possible and in the
The use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki may have ended the war earlier than it would have without it. It may have
saved millions of American – and Japanese – lives in the long run. That doesn’t,
however, mean that the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese
more devastating and destructive than ever, and our regulations and preventative
measures have simply not been keeping pace with its development. World War II
was a point where this concept was revealed to the world in a rather shocking
manner; the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were examples of how dangerous
war had become. The decision to attack these mostly civilian targets shows just how
convoluted some national governments and their militaries have become; when
we know that something is wrong with the ethical system in place for war time.
Stewart Wenner - 8
Even though the United States was fully aware of the capabilities of the atomic
bomb, they chose to use it on a target regardless of its civilian population. The fact
that the Japanese had been defined as “the enemy” in the minds of almost all
Americans led to a completely unethical and immoral attack that is very difficult to
justify. Sometimes all it takes is a photograph to show people that war is not a
game of any kind, but a serious matter which affects real people in real places, a
terrible sort of contact zone that in this case led to what can certainly be described
“The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Chapter 5 – The Selection of the
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp05.asp>.
Gamson, William A. “Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the Politics of Exclusion.” 1994.
Boston College. 30
file/PresidentialAddress1994.pdf>.
Groves, Leslie. “Official Bombing Order.” U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77,
<http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/index.html>.
“Laws and Customs of War on Land.” United States Senate. March 14, 1902. Nov.
2008.
<http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html>.
Mahoney, Leo J. “Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima: An Ironic Comparison.” 2005. Kafkas
University. 30 Oct.
2008. <http://www1.dogus.edu.tr/dogustru/journal/cilt_6_sayi_1/M00131.PDF?
ref=Klasistanbul.Com>.
Szilard, Leo. “Szilard Petition.” U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of
the Chief of
<http://www.sirs.com>.
Truman, Harry S. “Diary.” Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman.
2008. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html>.