The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood--and America--Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, certainly puts this center stage.
Hiroshima, in any case, remains a vital lesson for us all, not only
for the first use of a nuclear weapon there, but because of the “first
use” nuclear policy the U.S. maintains today.
Even the fact that the U.S. still has a first-strike policy (meaning
we will use nukes first in a crisis if need be) will surprise many,
especially with the end of the Cold War now a distant memory for some.
It’s a subject practically off-limits in the media and in American policy circles. Even the antinuclear documentary Countdown to Zero,
which outlined many serious nuclear dangers (from an accidental launch
to a terror attack on America), failed to even mention the possibility
that the U.S. might choose to use nuclear weapons again. Resisting a
no-first-use pledge, in fact, has been a cornerstone of U.S. nuclear
policy for decades.
Following a few positive signs from Obama, I fear that moving very
far in the direction of no-first-use is still a long way off in Trump's America.
Perhaps the strongest reason is this: most Americans, our media and
our leaders (including every president), have endorsed our “first-use”
of the bomb against Japan. This remains true today, despite new evidence
and analysis that has emerged for so many years. I’ve been probing this
for over thirty years — in hundreds of articles, a new film, in three books — with little
shift in the polls or change in heart among our policymakers and elected
There has also been little change abroad — where the use of the bomb
in 1945 has been roundly condemned from the beginning. Indeed, U.S.
support, even pride, in our use of the weapon has given us little moral
standing in arguing that other countries should not develop nuclear
weapons and consider using them, possibly as a first, not a last, resort
(that’s our policy, remember).
So it all goes back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While I respect the views of a range of historians on this matter,
and the opinions of the men who fought in the Pacific, I happen to
believe the bombs should not have been used against Japan — directly
over the center of massive cities — at that time. The war would likely have ended very
shortly without it (the bloody American invasion was not set until months
later), largely because of the Soviets finally declaring war on Japan —
an event long-dreaded by Japanese leaders.
Yes, there was a day when conservatives like John Foster Dulles,
columnist David Lawrence, Admiral William Leahy and General Dwight D.
Eisenhower — “We shouldn’t have hit them with that awful thing,” Ike
declared — clearly condemned the use of the bombs. They knew that the
argument of “saving tens of thousands of American lives” only counted if
an invasion actually was necessary. We had demanded “unconditional
surrender,” dropped the bombs — then accepted the main Japanese demand,
keeping their emperor as figurehead.
But the key point for today is this: how the “Hiroshima narrative”
has been handed down to generations of Americans — and overwhelmingly
endorsed by officials and the media, even if many historians disagree —
Over and over, top policymakers and commentators say, “We must never
use nuclear weapons,” yet they endorse the two times the weapons have
been used against cities in a first strike. To make any exceptions, even
in the past — and in certainly a horrid situation — means exceptions
can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two exceptions,
with more than 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using nuclear
weapons has been drawn... in the sand.
To cite just one example: Before our attack on Iraqi forces in Kuwait
in 1990, then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney said on TV that we would
consider using nuclear weapons against Iraq but would hold off “at this
point” — then specifically cited President Truman’s use of the bomb as
morally correct. Some polls at the time showed strong support from the
American public for using nukes if our military so advised.
And other polls since then show the same thing concerning other nuclear scenarios. Recent ones show as many as half of U.S. citizens would support on first-strike on Iran or North Korea--even if it might kill a million of more.
And, as I’ve noted, the fact that the United States first developed,
and then used — twice — the WMD to end all WMDs has severely compromised
our arguments against others building the weapon ever since. Hiroshima
was our original sin, and we are still paying for it, even if most
Americans do not recognize this.
That is why I always urge everyone to study the history surrounding
the decision to use the bomb and how the full story was covered up for
decades. (You could do worse than try my new book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood--and America--Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,) There is certainly, in the minds of the media and the American
public, no taboo on using nuclear weapons, and it all started, but did
not end, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is what nuclear abolitionists
— or even those who simply want a partial easing of our
first-use policy — are up against.