Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- So God Made A Factory Farmer...And Pesticides. And Subsidies. And Corn Syrup. And Mexicans.
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
Popular content
Today's Top News
Empire and Nuclear Weapons
Over the past six decades, the United States has used its nuclear arsenal in five often inter-related ways. The first was, obviously, battlefield use, with the "battlefield" writ large to include the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The long -held consensus among scholars has been that these first atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war against Japan, and that they were designed to serve a second function of the U.S. nuclear arsenal: dictating the parameters of the global (dis)order by implicitly terrorizing U.S. enemies and allies ("vassal states" in the words of former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.) The third function, first practiced by Harry Truman during the 1946 crisis over Azerbaijan in northern Iran and relied on repeatedly in U.S. wars in Asia and the Middle East, as well as during crises over Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis, has been to threaten opponents with first strike nuclear attacks in order to terrorize them into negotiating on terms acceptable to the United States or, as in the Bush wars against Iraq, to ensure that desperate governments do not defend themselves with chemical or biological weapons. Once the Soviet Union joined the nuclear club, the U.S. arsenal began to play a fourth role, making U.S. conventional forces, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, "meaningful instruments of military and political power." As Noam Chomsky explains, Brown was saying that implicit and explicit U.S. nuclear threats were repeatedly used to intimidate those who might consider intervening militarily to assist those we are determined to attack.
The final role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is deterrence, which came into play only when the Soviet Union began to achieve parity with the United States in the last years of the Vietnam War. This is popularly understood to mean preventing a surprise first strike attack against the United States by guaranteeing "mutual assured destruction." In other words, any nation foolish enough to attack the United States with nuclear weapons will be annihilated. However, Pentagon leaders have testified that deterrence has never been U.S. policy, and they have defined deterrence as preventing other nations from taking "courses of action" that are inimical to U.S. interests. This could include decisions related to allocation of scarce resources like oil and water, defending access to markets, or preventing non-nuclear attacks against U.S. allies and clients, i.e. role #2, using genocidal nuclear weapons to define and enforce the parameters and rules of the U.S. dominated global (dis)order.
My argument is not that U.S. use and threatened use of nuclear weapons have always succeeded. Instead, successive U.S. presidents, their most senior advisers, and many in the Pentagon have believed that U.S. use of nuclear weapons has achieved U.S. goals in the past. Furthermore, these presidents have repeatedly replicated this ostensibly successful model. In fact, even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved only one of their two purposes. These first bombs of the Cold War did communicate a terrorizing message to Stalin and the Soviet elite about the capabilities of these new weapons and about the U.S. will to use them. But, within weeks of the A-bombings, Washington was sharing influence in Korea with Moscow. Four years later northern China and Manchuria, which U.S. leaders thought they had won with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, fell into what was seen as the Soviet sphere. In 1954 France declined the offer of two U.S. A-bombs to break the Vietnamese siege at Dienbienphu, and in 1969 North Vietnam refused to be intimidated by Nixon's "November ultimatum."
The U.S. commitment to nuclear dominance and its practice of threatening nuclear attacks have, in fact, been counterproductive, increasing the dangers of nuclear war in yet another way: spurring nuclear weapons proliferation. No nation will long tolerate what it experiences as an unjust imbalance of power. It was primarily for this reason that the Soviet Union (now Russia) and China, North Korea, and quite probably Iran opted for nuclear weapons.
The Romance of Ruthlessness The Bush administration has again put nuclear weapons - and their various uses - at the center of U.S. military and foreign policy. The message of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in December 2001 was unmistakable. As The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists editorialized, "Not since the resurgence of the Cold War in Ronald Reagan's first term has U.S. defense strategy placed such an emphasis on nuclear weapons." The NPR reiterated the U.S. commitment to first-strike nuclear war fighting. For the first time, seven nations were specifically named as primary nuclear targets: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. Consistent with calls by senior administration figures who spoke of their "bias in favor of things that might be usable," the NPR urged funding for development of new and more usable nuclear weapons. This included a new "bunker buster." Seventy times more powerful than the Hiroshima A-bomb, the bunker buster was designed to destroy enemy command bunkers and WMD (weapons of mass destruction) installations buried hundreds of feet beneath the surface.
To ensure that the "bunker buster" and other new nuclear weapons could inflict their holocausts, the NPR called for accelerating preparations for the resumption of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. It also pressed for the nuclear weapons laboratories to continue modernizing the nuclear arsenal and to train a new generation of nuclear weapons scientists. Among their first projects would be the design of a "Reliable Replacement Warhead" to serve as the military's primary strategic weapon for the first half of the 21st century. With a massive infusion of new funds to consolidate and revitalize nuclear research, development and production facilities, National Nuclear Security Administration Deputy Administrator Tom D'Agostino testified it would "restore us to a level of capability comparable to what we had during the Cold War."
Later, the Rumsfeld Pentagon published and then ostensibly "rescinded" a non-classified version of its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. The Doctrine was revealing and profoundly disturbing. In the tradition of the Clinton administration's Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence, the Doctrine communicated that the United States could all too easily "become irrational and vindictive."
Most striking was the Doctrine's extended discussion of deterrence. Rather than define deterrence as the prevention of nuclear attacks by other nuclear powers, the Doctrine stated that "The focus of US deterrence efforts is... to influence potential adversaries to withhold actions intended to harm US' national interests...based on the adversary's perception of the...likelihood and magnitude of the costs or consequences corresponding to these courses of actions." Diplomatically, the Doctrine continued, "the central focus of deterrence is for one nation to exert such influence over a potential adversary's decision process that the potential adversary makes a deliberate choice to refrain from a COA [course of action.]" In addition to putting Chinese diplomatic efforts to marginalize U.S. power in Asia on notice or deterring unlikely Russian or French nuclear attacks, the central role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was global dominance. China, Russia, France and Germany were reminded of their proper places, and Iran and Venezuela received ample warning not to adopt oil and energy policies that might constitute- courses of action that would "harm U.S. national interests."
Placing the world on further notice, the Doctrine threatened that "The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons." Maintaining ambiguity about when the United States would use nuclear weapons helped to "create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries." The Doctrine also refused to rule out nuclear attacks against non-nuclear weapons states.
The Doctrine also baldly instructed the U.S. military that "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict," thus subordinating international law to U.S. military strategy. It also argued that nuclear wars could be won. The Doctrine gave increased authority to field commanders to propose targets for nuclear attacks and described the circumstances when field commanders could request approval to launch first-strike nuclear attacks. "Training," it further stated, "can help prepare friendly forces to survive the effects of nuclear weapons and improve the effectiveness of surviving forces." The Doctrine went on to reconfirm the bankruptcy of the nuclear reduction negotiations between the United States and Russia. The Doctrine was clear that U.S. nuclear forces would not actually be reduced because "US strategic nuclear weapons remain in storage and serve as an augmentation capability should US strategic nuclear force requirements rise above the levels of the Moscow Treaty."
Toward Abolition Since the end of the Cold War, the media and national political discourse in the United States have focused on the dangers of "horizontal proliferation." These dangers include "rogue" states with nuclear weapons, the possibility of nations with nuclear power plants becoming nuclear weapons states, and leakage from nuclear stockpiles finding its way to "rogue" states or to non-state terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. One nightmare scenario has envisioned the overthrow of the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of radical Islamists.
It doesn't take a genius to understand the importance of under-funded initiatives like the congressional Nunn-Lugar Nuclear Threat Initiative, which was designed to secure the world's nuclear weapons, fissile materials, and nuclear wastes. However, these efforts can be no more than stop-gap measures as long as the United States threatens other nations with nuclear attacks and insists on maintaining the terrorizing imbalance of power.
Since the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference, popular, elite, and governmental demands have been growing for the United States and other nuclear powers to fulfill their Article VI treaty commitment to negotiate the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In 1996, in the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the use and threatened use of nuclear weapons ruled that both are violations of international law, and the Court directed the nuclear powers to implement their Article VI commitments. While NGOs and popular movements from across the world came together to form Abolition 2000, at the elite level former head of the U.S. Strategic Command Gen. Lee Butler - supported by many of the world's generals and admirals - called for abolition. And, in January 2007, former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz joined former secretary of defense William Perry and former senator Sam Nunn in saying that U.S. double standards were driving nuclear weapons proliferation, and that the time had come for the United States to meet its NPT obligations.
Since then, pressed by voters and community based activists, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson have each stated that if elected, they will be the president who negotiates the complete elimination of the world's nuclear weapons. They need to be held to these commitments, and other presidential and congressional candidates need to be pressed to join their commitment. (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have made similar commitments.)
The political and technical steps needed to eliminate nuclear weapons have long been known. First, the United States must renounce its "first strike" nuclear wear fighting doctrines. Next it must refuse to fund the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons. The other essential steps include verified and irreversible dismantling of nuclear weapons and their installations; halting production of weapons-grade fissile material and securely containing existing stockpiles; verification, including societal verification, and intrusive inspection systems; and investing power in a supranational authority, probably the UN Security Council, to isolate, contain, or remove threats to the nuclear-free order.
Like cannibalism and slavery, nuclear weapons can be abolished. The question is whether we humans have the will and courage to choose life.
Table 1: Partial Listing of Incidents of Nuclear Blackmail
(From Empire and the Bomb: How the United States Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World by Joseph Gerson)
1946 Truman threatens Soviets regarding Northern Iran. 1946 Truman sends SAC bombers to intimidate Yugoslavia following the downing of U.S. aircraft over Yugoslavia. 1948 Truman threatens Soviets in response to Berlin blockade. 1950 Truman threatens Chinese when U.S. Marines were surrounded at Chosin Reservoir in Korea. 1951 Truman approves military request to attack Manchuria with nuclear weapons if significant numbers of new Chinese forces join the war. 1953 Eisenhower threatens China to force an end to Korean War on terms acceptable to the United States. 1954 Eisenhower's Secretary of State Dulles offers French three tactical nuclear weapons to break the siege at Dienbienphu, Vietnam. Supported by Nixon's public trial balloons. 1954 Eisenhower used nuclear armed SAC bombers to reinforce CIA-backed coup in Guatemala. 1956 Bulganin threatens London and Paris with nuclear attacks, demanding withdrawal following their invasion of Egypt. 1956 Eisenhower counters by threatening the U.S.S.R. while also demanding British and French retreat from Egypt. 1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, if necessary to prevent extension of revolution into Kuwait. 1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against China if they invade the island of Quemoy. 1961 Kennedy threatens Soviets during Berlin Crisis. 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. 1967 Johnson threatens Soviets during Middle East War. 1967 Johnson's public threats against Vietnam are linked to possible use of nuclear weapons to break siege at Khe Shan. 1969 Brezhnev threatens China during border war. 1969 Nixon's "November Ultimatum" against Vietnam. 1970 Nixon signals U.S. preparations to fight nuclear war during Black September War in Jordan. 1973 Israeli Government threatens use of nuclear weapons during the "October War." 1973 Kissinger threatens Soviet Union during the last hours of the "October War" in the Middle East. 1973 Nixon pledges to South Vietnamese President Thieu that he will respond with nuclear attacks or the bombing of North Vietnam's dikes if it violated the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords. 1975 Sec. of Defense Schlesinger threatens North Korea with nuclear retaliation should it attack South Korea in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. 1980 Carter Doctrine announced. 1981 Reagan reaffirms the Carter Doctrine. 1982 British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher threatens to eliminate Buenos Aires during the Falklands War. 1990 Pakistan threatens India during confrontation over Kashmir. 1990-91 Bush threatens Iraq during the "Gulf War." 1993 Clinton threatens North Korea. 1994 Clinton's confrontation with North Korea. 1996 China threatens "Los Angeles" during confrontation over Taiwan. Clinton responds by sending two nuclear-capable aircraft carrier fleets through the Taiwan Straight. 1996 Clinton threatens Libya with nuclear attack to prevent completion of underground chemical weapons production complex. 1998 Clinton threatens Iraq with nuclear attack. 1999 India and Pakistan threaten and prepare nuclear threats during the Kargil War. 2001 U.S. forces placed on a DEFCON alert in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. 2001 Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refuses to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons against Afghan caves possibly sheltering Osama Bin Laden. 2002 Bush communicates an implied threat to counter any Iraqi use of chemical weapons to defend Iraqi troops with chemical or biological weapons with a U.S. nuclear attack. 2006 French Prime Minister Chirac threatens first strike nuclear attacks against nations that practice terrorism against France. 2006 & 07 "All options are on the table": U.S. threats to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure made by President Bush and presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.
Table 1: Partial Listing of Incidents of Nuclear Blackmail(From Empire and the Bomb: How the United States Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World by Joseph Gerson)
1946 Truman threatens Soviets regarding Northern Iran. 1946 Truman sends SAC bombers to intimidate Yugoslavia following the downing of U.S. aircraft over Yugoslavia. 1948 Truman threatens Soviets in response to Berlin blockade. 1950 Truman threatens Chinese when U.S. Marines were surrounded at Chosin Reservoir in Korea. 1951 Truman approves military request to attack Manchuria with nuclear weapons if significant numbers of new Chinese forces join the war. 1953 Eisenhower threatens China to force an end to Korean War on terms acceptable to the United States. 1954 Eisenhower's Secretary of State Dulles offers French three tactical nuclear weapons to break the siege at Dienbienphu, Vietnam. Supported by Nixon's public trial balloons. 1954 Eisenhower used nuclear armed SAC bombers to reinforce CIA-backed coup in Guatemala. 1956 Bulganin threatens London and Paris with nuclear attacks, demanding withdrawal following their invasion of Egypt. 1956 Eisenhower counters by threatening the U.S.S.R. while also demanding British and French retreat from Egypt. 1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, if necessary to prevent extension of revolution into Kuwait. 1958 Eisenhower orders Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to use nuclear weapons against China if they invade the island of Quemoy. 1961 Kennedy threatens Soviets during Berlin Crisis. 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. 1967 Johnson threatens Soviets during Middle East War. 1967 Johnson's public threats against Vietnam are linked to possible use of nuclear weapons to break siege at Khe Shan. 1969 Brezhnev threatens China during border war. 1969 Nixon's "November Ultimatum" against Vietnam. 1970 Nixon signals U.S. preparations to fight nuclear war during Black September War in Jordan. 1973 Israeli Government threatens use of nuclear weapons during the "October War." 1973 Kissinger threatens Soviet Union during the last hours of the "October War" in the Middle East. 1973 Nixon pledges to South Vietnamese President Thieu that he will respond with nuclear attacks or the bombing of North Vietnam's dikes if it violated the provisions of the Paris Peace Accords. 1975 Sec. of Defense Schlesinger threatens North Korea with nuclear retaliation should it attack South Korea in the wake of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. 1980 Carter Doctrine announced. 1981 Reagan reaffirms the Carter Doctrine. 1982 British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher threatens to eliminate Buenos Aires during the Falklands War. 1990 Pakistan threatens India during confrontation over Kashmir. 1990-91 Bush threatens Iraq during the "Gulf War." 1993 Clinton threatens North Korea. 1994 Clinton's confrontation with North Korea. 1996 China threatens "Los Angeles" during confrontation over Taiwan. Clinton responds by sending two nuclear-capable aircraft carrier fleets through the Taiwan Straight. 1996 Clinton threatens Libya with nuclear attack to prevent completion of underground chemical weapons production complex. 1998 Clinton threatens Iraq with nuclear attack. 1999 India and Pakistan threaten and prepare nuclear threats during the Kargil War. 2001 U.S. forces placed on a DEFCON alert in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. 2001 Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refuses to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons against Afghan caves possibly sheltering Osama Bin Laden. 2002 Bush communicates an implied threat to counter any Iraqi use of chemical weapons to defend Iraqi troops with chemical or biological weapons with a U.S. nuclear attack. 2006 French Prime Minister Chirac threatens first strike nuclear attacks against nations that practice terrorism against France. 2006 & 07 "All options are on the table": U.S. threats to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure made by President Bush and presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.This article is adapted from Joseph Gerson, Empire and the Bomb (University of Michigan Press, 2007).
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
33 Comments so far
Show All"The question is whether we humans have the will and courage to choose life."
If "we humans" got to vote, these weapons would have been abolished a long time ago. If "we humans" had significant say in our governments, we'd be spending little on war and dealing with global warming and poverty. Unfortunately, democracy is more a concept than a reality; ruthless people tend to take control of all governments, and only the insanely ruthless would threaten to use nuclear weapons, especially for anything less than defense against a similar threat. Looks like every US president has been in the insanely ruthless category. You notice who's missing from the list of those who've pledged to get rid of these evil weapons--Clinton, the supposed front-runner selected by the media to be our next president.
liberals = natural diversity x order x peace x sustainability
conservatives = unnatural uniformity x disorder x chaos x entropy
republicans = conservatives
democrats = mixed
greens = liberals
ezeflyer: This is not a conservative v liberal, Repug v Dim issue. Like mwildfire stated, this is a human v government problem. And the status quo is insanity.
Since then, pressed by voters and community based activists, John "Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson have each stated that if elected, they will be the president who negotiates the complete elimination of the world's nuclear weapons. They need to be held to these commitments, and other presidential and congressional candidates need to be pressed to join their commitment. (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have made similar commitments.)"
Great piece, but if you think these criminals are going to give up American nukes, then you're totally naive. No different than the gangs in the hood... Gonna give up the tools of their trade? The tools to murder, shake down, wreak havoc and to go in a just "bust up the joint" without "winning" (er, like IRAQ), uh, don't count on it. It'll NEVER happen.
Um, what about Bush's declaration on Oct 17, 2007 We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from [having] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon..
Sounds like nuclear blackmail to me.
Rebel Farmer said:
"ezeflyer: This is not a conservative v liberal, Repug v Dim issue. Like mwildfire stated, this is a human v government problem. And the status quo is insanity."
I think the issue is certainly a conservative v liberal one. Would we be in this mess if not for conservative democrats and generally even more conservative republicans?
Conservatives worldwide are responsible for every single holocaust, war and act of destruction humanity has suffered, from Hitler to Stalin, from Kissinger to Pol Pot, from the Inquisition to the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials, to Dahmer and Berkowitz and to you name the crime and conservatives are responsible for it. Conservatives are our bestial nature that reacts through fear, greed and violence personified by Bush. Liberals are our humanistic side that acts peacefully and kindly personified by Jesus.
Here are two good articles on the subject:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/19/why_conservatives_cant_govern.php
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html
I didn't bother to read all of this article, for when we get to the list of threats by Truman, he didn't tell it like it was at all. Nor did he tell it like it really was when we used atomic bombs on Japan. Ths is precicely the type of false journalism, that has fostered the false beliefs about the United States in regards to this issue. There are truths here and many falsehoods.
History is always factual, the truth, it can only be altered by writers or historians, who may distort the truth to satisfy their own agenda.
ezeflyer: thank you for posting those links. Both were excellent. If we understand how those who oppose us truly think, then it becomes possible to persuade them to change their minds, using their own tactics. Although, I'd hate to stoop that low.
With 20 20 hindsight the atomic bombs dropped on Japan may not appear necessary. At the time, many believed that they were necessary especially the soldiers that felt that they would be killed if the war went on.
We are so smart we attacked Grenada, Iraq at least twice etc, etc., etc. for a lot less provocation and have been at least as cruel and more so when it comes to torture than the WW2 generation in occupation.
We should take the beam out of our own eye so that we can see clearly to take the speck out of our brother's eye.
Google these three things. German sub U-234, ___ Japan's atomic bomb program, ___ Japanese I-400 submarine aircraft carriers. Read all of those articles which were top secret until 1984, and you will see what President Truman was acutely aware of in May of 1945. Those imprtant facts were part of the reasons he had to make the fateful decision to use atomic bombs on Japan, before they MAY have used them on us. Those historical things have never been taught in our schools.
Truman refused flat out, to use atomic bombs during the Korean conflict as General MacArthur wanted him to do. He also refused flat out to allow DU to be used in weapons, ___ ever.
Months before August 1945, any US Navy officer in aviation or submarines knew how totally defeated Japan was. Some of them wrote books a few years later and said so.
KEM PATRICK's allegations are interesting, possibly true and probably irrelevant, as Hiroshima/Nagasaki gave Japan justification for nuking the US.
First thing: It's interesting how USAlanders learn their own history, and how it's seen from the outside. I learned the atomic bombing episode this way:
During WWII, USA and Great Britain made USSR commited to declare war on Japan, once Germany was defeated. This situation materializes by mid1945, and USSR sent a very powerful army against Manchuria, where the bulk of japanese army was, and where it had been all along the war.
In this moment, USA - that knew very well the strength of its red ally -realizes that Japan could probably surrender soon....to the soviets.
USA knew that it wasn't in conditions for launching a successful assault on japanese metropolitan islands, not until 1946; but it had the bomb, and Japan surrendered to USA.
Second thing, I quote: "The question is whether we humans have the will and courage to choose life."
I think that we do have will and courage to choose life, I think that many of us have given proof of such commitment, I have known a good lot along my life, so I'm sure of this. My worry is if we will be on time, I think we can defeat the forces of greed, but I'm not sure they cannot blow away the human civilization - and devastate the world in the process - before we the people can stablish a new relationship.
Best luck to all of us!
GDE.___ Did you bother to read those articles? Many people wrote books after the war. Hardly any American was aware of those top secret documents that a Mr. Tom Paine was. Not even Generals MacArthur, Eisenhour, LeMay anong m;any others ever read them. They are now available for any to read.
Interesting that you brought up Naval officers who wrote books about the war. One was Tom O. Paine. He was a nuclear scientist, and was an officer on the last Japanese I-400 sub that was sailed from Jaqpan to Hawaii in Sept of 1945. He wrote, the I-400 submarine, was state of the art and far advanced to anything we had and was a definite tactical threat. They were huge submarines which carried excellent bomber aircraft, up to 250 men, it had an aircraft engine overhaul bay, it was capable of a submerged speed double of any we had and could travel 37,500 miles submerged, on a single fuel load. There ismuch more to read about Japan's ability to prevent a successful landing on their shores or bombAmerican cities with nuclear weapons.
The cargo on that captured sub was highly classified and to this day, Paine's report, which is in the Library Of Congress, is still classified and available to NO ONE. It is as secret as Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson AFB. Paine later was the Flight Director for the NASAs moon landing missions. He was no dope. Sadly there is a lot of information now available, which few are aware of and it is not taught in our schools. Obviously the author of this artilce is unaware of it.
Hey Kem Patrick, if nuking Japan was the right thing to do, at the time, why did 'The United States Strategic Bombing Survey' which was ordered by Truman and released in July 1946, say that it wasn't necessary? The summary, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 Dec 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 Nov 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
And why did these American military leaders oppose the nuking of Japan? Carl Spaatz, Carter Clarke, Douglas MacAurther, William Leahy, Curtis LeMay, Ernest King, Chester Nimitz and Dwight Eisenhower who said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing".
There are many more parts to this deplorable story that killed, as of 2005, 237,062 in Hiroshima and 140,141 in Nagasaki.
Read it the 'Bombing Civilians' chapter, page 107, free download.
www.amoralamerica.info
Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
In a civilized world there is no place for mass murderers and their mass-murdering weapons. America, are you listening?
On the article: It's always so funny to hear U.S. politicians talking about the dangers of this or that little tin-pot guy getting a nuke. It makes me laugh so hard I cry. Please remove log from own eye before looking at speck in neighbor's eye.
To Kem Patrick:
Point 1: U-234 was carrying uranium oxide. Uranium oxide does not equal an atomic bomb. Japan did not have the capacity or the resources to develop an atomic bomb in 1945 as nearly all books written on the subject show, including this one: http://stonebooks.com/archives/050724.shtml That sub could have been filled with dirt and made just as much difference to Japan's war effort.
Point 2: The I-400 submarines were never really battle tested. Only three were completed and one was sunk in one of their only engagements. Three subs weren't going to amount to squat at that time because the US enjoyed total naval and air superiority so those subs couldn't go anywhere without being attacked. Furthermore, their large size was more of a disadvantage than an advantage. The key advantage of a submarine is stealth. With WWII era technology, a larger submarine could not pass undetected as easily as a smaller one because it would be more easily spotted by either the naked eye or by radar. It also would be unable to dive as quickly. Those subs couldn't have accomplished much beyond getting sunk.
Point 3: The main reason that a government agency or official might classify something is because it is deemed to be dangerous. The question that should be asked, though, is what kind of danger it represents. One might find that oftentimes the reason something is classified is not because it represents a real and present danger to the people (lost lives, etc.), but because it is embarrassing. Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers? Slapton Sands? The bombing of Bari? George W. Bush's IQ test results? It is prudent to be very skeptical of the reasoning behind anything that a government agency or official does. Power corrupts.
Point 4: There is no reason to teach primary and secondary students unsubstantiated and sensationalized versions of history, though there would definitely be a place for such information in an upper level history curriculum, after the student has been cured of the notion that history is all about facts.
Point 5: Take any current event and read two editorials about it, one from the "left" and one from the "right". Not only will they differ in how they describe what the event means and what the response should be, they will often differ as to what exactly happened. If it is so difficult for people to agree on what happened yesterday, why should it be any easier to determine exactly what happened 65 years ago? A historian's job is to try to wade through the primary and secondary sources and try to get a close approximation of what actually happened. However, all historians are biased, one way or another, and usually have multiple biases. Howard Zinn's phrase for this is quite apt, "You can't stay neutral on a moving train." This may seem a bit too postmodern, but it's widely accepted in the discipline.
Point 6: I admire your stance on many issues, Kem, so please don't take this personally.
BFEARN. Have you read the once Top Secret articles I suggested?
Those generals you mentioned, were never, ever aware of those documents. Are you aware of how close Japan was to having a nuclear weapon. Was that captured sub carrying nuclear bombs, or dirty nuclear weapons, it was half way across the Pacific and sailing to our western shores when Japan surrendered. The cover story was they were going to bomb the Panama Canal. What was their actual cargo and mission? We may never know, that cargo manifest is still classified and available to NO ONE. Read the story of Commander Tom O. Paine. His documents are in th especial section of th eNimitz library at Annapolis and were required readng for graduate cadets.
Did you know that Japan had 12 fully equipped and well armed divisions, prepared to defend our landing zone, with another 13 divisions in ready reserve. They almost outnumbered our landing forces. We had a terrible time at Okinawa and we outnumbered their troops there more than four to one. Did you know that the Japanese had over 3,000 suicide bombers, fully prepared to hit our invasion fleet. They didn't have to fly several hundred miles to do so either, as they had at Okinawa. Many were the rocket propelled Baca bombers, which they had tested at Okinawa had sunk may of our ships there and killed more sailors than all that were killed during the entire war combined? We found it near impossible to defend against those.
Did you know that Japanese Army officers had planned a military take over of the Emperors Palace and put him under house arrest, so he could not deliver the surrender message to the citizens of Japan? Did you know that it was just a lucky miracle that they were not successful, due to an air raid alert and they became confused and the Emperor was able to reach the broadcat station and order the surrender. The Japanese military would have never surrendered, until every single Japanese citizen was dead. They proved that at Okinawa, where even after the final shots had been fired, hundreds of civilians lept to their death, women carring babies and children lept off the high cliffs to the rocks below and died, rather than surrender.
In spite of offers by Japanese diplomats to Switzerland and other countries, their Army officers would not have allowed, a surrender, even if we had used several atomic bombs.
They admitted that after the war ended. Some also have asserted, an dhave written books as such, that we demanded a unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted a conditional surrender and when they did finally surrender we allowed that conditional surrender. That is false. The surrender terms drawn up at the Potsdam conference, were identical to the final surrender terms, word for word. It was unconditional. General MacArthur, as the Gvernor of Japan, was allowed to determne how the terms would be administered. He was more than fair and also gracious to thier Emperor.
Those generals were pissed at how the war ended, it was not how West point generals planned and fought war, it was not "nobel". Curtis LLeMay planeed on fire bombign ever sngle city in Japan and drooled over it. Far more innocent civilians were killed by fire bombings, than by any other means. They despised Truman, he was only a captain durng WW 1, a peon. None of them were aware of the atomic bombs until the day they were used. It is ironic, that during the Korean War, MacArthur wanted to use atomic bombs on China and Norht Korea. Truman refused, and due to the dispute, Truman fired MacArthur.
We never knew what the Japanese nuclear facility was like, how close they came, it is strongly bellieved they exploded a test bomb there on or about August 12th, 1945. The facilities were taken by the Russians the day after Japan surrendered, It was in North Korea. Stalin knew that and that was why he decared war on the japanese just days before they surrendered. He wanted that nuclear facility, that our intelligence and Truman was not aware of.
KEM, you are a 'good-read', and well-read/experienced yourself. And I have no agenda for 'changing your opinions' -- whatever opinions happen to suit you.
But, you often fail to draw any distinction betwixt the occasional 'uninitiated-civilians who fall into temporary but Key positions' [such as haberdashers from Missouri -- regardless their fine-character (or lack-of-same)], and the 'real'&enduring power-elite who always surround/influence them. Those who, on a sustained-basis, tilt the balance of 'All' in their pre-ordained fashion and with planned-intent.
All you rely upon, from Paine and many-others, and the erstwhile 'TS' documentation that occasionally filters-down (while important-others never-do) is 'true' to the extent it applies. You can make your 'case' for why Truman acted as he-did -- you may not, however, claim full-knowledge of the purposes/intents behind those who 'filtered' and spun what was presented to Truman.
In the final-analysis, which is more the 'telling' behind "America's" actual and abidding Intents?
[I'll submit, without 'documentation' whatsoever, that much of what the Japanese were basing their so-called 'nuclear-program' upon was initiated with much they were covertly-fed from British and US Intel-assets (the OSS, and several individuals later well-placed in MI-6 -- the Japanese never well-known for 'innovation'...). So, too, the same sort of 'realist-Thinkers' later insured (as Promised) that Stalin received what was required to elevate them to their 'useful', but always held-inferior, post-War 'status' as "enemy that never-was".
Covert manipulations of major-governments (and, often, their 'leaders') has progressed steadily and increasingly for many hundreds of years -- consider it a Fine (if Covert and Black) Art. It requires only a wealthy, if 'small', Core of dedicated and inspired 'like-interests' -- and the foreknowledge (which you'll never-glean from any reports/books) of "what must be, and how it is to be accomplished". A few-dozen 'in on the Joke', and dedicated to it in a multi-generational and inherited fashion while building the alliances and the strengths of their 'shared-interest Sycophants', can accomplish and control far-more than you might ever-imagine (or want-to). And 'does'.]
Peace has a spiritual quality about it. True and lasting peace can come only come when opposing parties are holding a gun to each others head.
Does any body doubt even for a moment that China would not have been nuked to heaven if they had not come up with a nuke to counter the threat in a hurry in the wake of the Korean war. McArthur was very actively advocating nuke strikes but Turman seemed to have lost his nerve. On the other hand Mao told Nixon during his historic visit to China that if it were up to him he would have used nukes during the Cuban missile crisis. He is reported to have said - so what if 400 million Chinese die there would still be 300 million left.
We have peace with Russia and China precisely for the same reason. Let Iran and other countries have the same benefit.
Not at all Chicanery. I respect you also and like you too. The only thing I ask, is you read the account written by Tom O Paine. He was very highly regarded by everyone. I mean after all, he was selected to be the top person at NASA when we sent our first missions to the moon.
What he wrote about the I-400 subs is not what you read and then wrote here. One surrendered at sea, half way across the Pacific. There is a very good article there if you Google Japanese I-400 subs. They were not sunk until after the war and we sunk them so the Russians could not examine them. Those bombers were capable of hitting any ciy in America. too.
Germany could not enrich the uranium, we had managed to destroy their heavy water facility in Norway in 1943. Japan could, that is why they had sent several loads of uraanium to Japan. There was enough of it in U-234 to make two bombs. Openheimer was there the day after U-234 docked and was very concerned. It is believed that uranium was sent to las Alamos and may have been used in at least one of the four atomic bombs we had by August of 1945.
Now, none of what I have written here is my personel opinions. It is just that I have read FAR different reports than you have. I am reading reports taken from official government documents, not books written by 'experts'. I don't know what you have read on the subject. I taught Geopolitics at the Air Force Academy for two years, and taught this subject, I had top secret documents for my references. They are no longer top secret. I did err on my laat post, it is believed the Japanese scientists, some of who were friends of Einstien, tested an atomic bomb in late July or early August of 1945, not August 12th.
Gee KALIA, Where did you read that? China did not have nuclear bombs until years after the cease fire and truce in North Korea. Truman lost his nerve? I don't think so, Who hd more nerve than that man? He didn't want to use the second bomb on a Japanese city. Simpson ordered that behind his back. Truman didn't want to bomb another city after what everyone saw that it did. It had nothing to do with nerve. Truman wanted to use the second on a military base only and only if the Japanese refused to surrender.
Truman didn't know if Japan had atomic weapon capability in August of 1945. All he knew for certain was, it WAS possible that they did have them. He wanted the war to end as soon as possible for that reason. He also didn't wish to start WW 3. MacArthur didn't care f we did or not. In fact he may have been correct to start it many beleved.
Truman didn't know if they had one or more and he knew if they did they would use them and knew they had the means to deliver them. All of that was top secret and very few were aware of those things. And of course the authors of many books did not know about those things. Many of the things that have been written on the subject are not history at all, just mostly opinions and or, half truths.
ezeflyer and rebel farmer:
Isn't it a question of v v. v : a question of a dualistic perception of humanity? If one person in a village has a fear of death, doesn't the whole village have a fear of death?
Look at how conversations, as most of the commentary here, spirals into word after word and more words with each syllable tinged with the desire for human recognition.
As Thich Nhat Hanh says, "People deserve their governmants and governments deserve their people." Thus, why do we have a government that uses nuclear weapons and a people that allows it?
At least in cannibalism there was a ritualistic reverence for life and with slavery at least a value for economics and production; with nuclear weaponry it seems the human divide splinters further and further on the alter of fear. And how silly when all it takes to overcome is a hand shake and a deep looking into the eyes...oh, and an open heart, guess that's the difficult part.
I seem to be hoggng the screen here, so I will write this and stop. First, I am not for any wars, and or, use of atomic weapons or DU ammunition. I do believe in seeking the truth of issues on historical events and rely upon the very best info I can find before I offer an opinion.
Tom O Paine was a nuclear scientist, he was a submariner officer during WW2. He was on the I-400 that was delivered under its own power from Japan to Hawaii. He should be considered an expert on the subject, as he was one who examined that ship from stem to strern before it was fially sunk. He was fully aware of its capabilities and states it was an incredible ship that was far superior to anything we had and was decades ahead of its time and was a tactical threat. It wa not a boat, it was over 400 feet in length. The aricraft it carried were as good as any light bomber we had for carrying a large bomb.
I will accept his word over any others who have opinions on the subject, for those reasons. After the war, Paine worked for GE and was instrumental in helping to design and develop the first atomic submarines. He was selected to be the head hog at NASA and then returned to work for GE. Take all of those experiences together, it would be strange to say, he didn't know what he was talking about in regards to the Japanese subs I-400 class.
Finally why was the cargo it carried when it surrendered, when Japan surrendered, still highly classified and at the very highest classification and still is. There could be nothing it carried that would embarrass the United States, as we never claimed at the time it had anything of a top secret classification and no mention of atomic weapons. We just do not know, and any opinions are only supposition. It is known, that the sub had over 30 men above the normal crew aboard when they surfaced and surrendered and the Captain killed himself in shame.
Here is a link for the Japanese nuclear program. We will never know all of the truth, for Russia took the nuclear facilitiies and we have never seen them. Not long after they were taken by Russia, Russia did test their first atomic bomb and it was a hell of a lot more powerful than any we had at that time and we were surprised out of our wits, that they had managed to develop one.
Do I think Japan had the boomb in 1945, No I personally don't. I believe they had dirty bombs and intended to use them on our west coast cities. I believe they also planned on doing the same on our invasion forces if we had an invasion of their homeland. That is why I also believe their army officers did not want a surrender. Not only because it was beyond their code of ethics, they thought they could manage a stalemate and have no occupation. That we would quit, before we lost another million of our young men.
We would surely have lost a million or more if we had invaded Japan. So, I'm glad but at the same time sad, that Truman used the atomic bomb for those reasons, saving millions of lives, both American and Japanese, and ending the war. For waht any may argue, the war did end after we used them. For they were not about to surrender.
The important thing is, President Truman had the intelligence he had. He didn't know if the Japanese had an atomic bomb, or bombs or not. He could only guess, and guess based upon what he did konw for certain. It was not a sensible option to gamble, that they didn't have them.
There is my 200 cents.___ Link for Japan's nuclear program
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm
BTW, that link is also an article from the Tokyo newspaper.
There is no consensus among scholars that the atomic bombings were unnecessary, and saying it doesn't make it so.
KEM PATRICK
I know that you are anti-war, but your apologist arguments for Fat Man and Little Boy are hollow. I just don't know where to start, other than when historical yet previously secret information is released, it is either a) irrelevant, or b) to serve the needs and/or protect the current and/or future administration. The incomplete stories that you mentioned were carefully edited before release. The complete stories do not serve US interests, and therefore will never be released, even though today they are just interesting stories that are 60 years old.
One of the first things you should read is Stinnet's "Day of Deceit", a damning indictment of FDR's orchestration of the Pearly Harbor attack. The US Administration spin machine has been in top gear since.
"The US Administration spin machine has been in top gear since."
Of course, that first PH was no more 'legitimate' than the second -- but are you implying that the self-same 'spin-machine' has NOT been in similarly-oriented and directed "top gear" since before the Civil (moreover, since even the Revolutionary) War?
Please...
It is pretty clear to me, that the last few bloggers here chose to not read those Japanese newspaper reports and editorials, published after 2003, or the several other articles written on Japan's nuclear program which began in the 1930s, by people who were there and witnessed what actually happened, articles and papers which are all given in that link I offered. Some say I am not well informed.
You are not arguing with me about this issue, you are saying the well informed people who wrote those articles and Tom Paine, don't know what they are saying and they are incorrect, yet you never bothered to read what they wrote. I don't understand how anyone can come to those conclusions, until they have read the credible reports.
Many people who blog at Common Dreams on a variety of issues, seem to be able to form strong opinions on an issue after reading a book written by someone who has a one sided view point and may be horribly wrong.
One person here who I really respect and almost always agree with, wrote a string of comments on this string, which are directly in conflict with the articles and books Tom Paine wrote. Tom Paine is perhaps the best informed person who ever wrote on the subject of th eJapanese submersible aircraft carriers and he's wrong?
His papers on the subject were required reading for all graduate Naval Academy cadets, his papers are in the special section of the Nimitz library. But some here say he was wrong, but never read his papers. Paine was not a politician, nor did he have a political agenda. He just wrote what he was aware of and offered his opinions based upon hands on experience. I choose to belileve he was correct. Also the photographic evidence and statments from experienced Japanese naval officers, back up Paine's statements and opinions. Those are now availabe on the net.
One of the aircraft from that sub Paine thoroughly examined and took on a long underwater cruise, is in the Smithsonian and is the only one left in the world. It was a dive bomber which was fully capable of dropping nuclear weapons, explosive or dirty, on any city in the United States, depending upon which ocean or Gulf it was launched from.
Based upon the information available to me and to anyone now, information few have ever read, I choose to believe we were very fortunate the war ended when it did. We are also fortunate we never attempted to land an invasion force on the Japanese mainland, and the Japanese people are very fortunate that the war did not drag on for even another month, for LeMay would have fire bombed another 40 some cities and killed millions of innocent people. They wouldn't have died from atomic fire, but the would have burned to death,__ millions of them!
when I was in high school, I learned from our teachers and from 'books', that Truman was wrong and the atomic bombs were horrible, unnecessary, immoral weapons, that never should have been used. I believed that. I was not however fully informed of some very important facts. Neither are some who are commenting on this article.
If you would read what I have read and studied, and do so with a a clear and open mind, you may understand why Truman made his choices to use the atomic bombs. If any do take the time to look the articles up and then don't believe the contents, commnent on the articles and argue what they say, not what I have chosen to believe and teach me why I am wrong on this. I'll listen to arguments that are fair and taken from the same documents I use as a basis for my opinions.
Hi KEM,
I appreciate all the reading that you do on our behalf, but on the issue of a Japanese nuke, I did read the links you gave, and found that accounts by physicists (such as at AIP, FAS and BAS, all peer-reviewed) to be more compelling than those by non scientists. The accounts given by physicists indicate that Japan was several years (under non-wartime conditions) from a gadget by war's end.
For my own research, I prefer Gar Alperovitz and the sundry biographies of Oppenheimer (especially Bird & Sherwin). Neither provide support for an advanced or large Japanese nuclear weapon program during WWII. Oppenheimer's "ignorance" of advanced genzai bakudan is compelling, for it is a strong indicator that LeMay also knew little. I doubt if LeMay would have been outside of Truman's inner circle.
Oh, one more thing; you stated that Tom Paine's books are required Naval Academy reading. So too is Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October", that incidentally was first published by Naval Academy Press as a text book for its students. But that hardly validates the mythological Russian magnetohydrodynamic "tractor drive". :)
Tom Paine's writings are not fiction. And Clancey's books were never classified as top secret. I hate to argue, but many top secret documents are indeed top secret and should be. Also why would any intelligent, fair minded or sensible person, shrug off Tom Paine's opinions and writings?
Tom Paine was a nuclear scientist, a naval officer and submariner during World War Two. He once headed NASA, and he helped to develop our first nuclear subs when a top engineer at the GE boat division. He is considered to be the experts expert on the subject of the I-400 class Japanese submarines, as he had weeks of hands on experience there. I don't believe he should be classifed in the same league as Tom Clancy. But some will argue any point with such opinins to prove they are correct, that is human nature, ___ or perhaps bull headedness.
Evidently you did not open every one of the links provided in the first link. There are over twenty. For some of the Japanese nuclear scientists and physicists, were considered by Albert Einstien, to be among the very best.
Generals LeMay, Macarthur, Eisenhower, among all general officers except Marshall and Arnold and the one star who headed the Manhatten project, were totally out of the loop with the Manhatten project. Even Truman was until Roosevelt died. You assume wrong.
Paul Tibbets was not informed about what type of bomb was to be used, until the bomb was delivered to Tinnian Islnd. The ship that delivered the bombs mission was so secret, that its location was kept top secret and not known by the Pacific fleet Commanders after it had already delivered the bombs. That of course turned out to be a horrible disaster, as the heavy cruiser was sunk by a Japanese sub and most of the crew were killed by sharks or drowned over a four day period. (which some here claim could not have happened, as the Japanese were "totally" out of the war by that time.)
No, Curtis LeMay and those other top generals were not aware of the atomic bomb until the day it was used. That of course pissed them off, as generals by nature, are prima-donnas and their feeling and egos were seriously damaged.
Finally, President Truman was fully aware of three very important things by May 11, 1945.
1. Germany was shipping uranium to Japan. Why Oppenheimer asked? Japan may be able to enrich it he surmsed and informed Truman of that opinion. He also knew it was not the first shipment.
2. Japan had alredy once bombed the United States in Oregon, and they had done so with a bomber which had been launched from a submarine. That was kept top secret, but Truman was aware of that. Japan had the capability of doing it again,__ nuclear weapons? Truman didn't know for certain, there was no way for him to know that. It makes no difference what was discovered after the war ended. Truman could only work with what he did know for certain in 1945. No one can honestly argue that.
3. The estimated deaths of American troops, if we had anoter 'D' day, __ or 'J' day it was named, on Japan's homeland, ranged from a low of 30,000 to a high of well over a million. Our military staffs were still planning a 'J' day, after the second atomic bomb had been dropped. The Japanese were not going to surrender and the Potsdam surrender document was not going to be changed, not a single word and it never was.
So Truman knew those and other important things. Should he give the Okay to use the atomic bombs? What would any person in HIS position have decided?
He did not know if Japan had an atomic bomb ready to use on our invasion fleet, or our cities in August of 1945. He only knew it was possible and that they had the means to use them with effect if they did have them.
One person here wrote that was a poor decision then, for if Japan did have them, we were foolish to use ours, or then the Japanese would have retaliated and used theirs. Using that simple and not very intelligent logic, we should have not used ours, and taken a chance Japan would use theirs first, and possibly have destroyed our entire invasion force.
Anyway, Truman knew a lot more about it than almost anyone else did in 1945 and that critical information was known to only a very few, until the 1980s.
Great analysis Joseph (despite whatever flaws our esteemed colleagues wish to identify).
When I started reading, I thought the point would be our use of nuclear weapons in WW II, Iraq I, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq II (the latter four being DU weapons, rather than the uranium and plutonium weapons leashed on Japanese civilians). The crime in Japan was bombing non-combatants, a massive terrorist attack. Bombing a defended island or homeland military base (like in "Transformers") could have had the same effect, by the implied threat of swift escalation. All DU use harms multitudes of innocents.
Since the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, every US administration (except during SALT & START) has been violating the treaty by not working to disarm, and by selectively allowing proliferation. In the tradition of Lysistrada, men should be banned from holding any public office as long as any such weapons (and their bastard offspring nuclear power plants) exist on the planet. All life on earth will be long dead by the time this rock's surface has cooled off from humanity's current radioactivity spree. Maybe high levels of mutation will lead to magnificent new capabilities in the gene pool; more likely the current crop of hideous defects will continue forever, because the cause, local extreme increased radioactivity, will continue for the rest of the planet's life.
The planet of the apes