Painting by a survivor of the atomic bombings
During World War II, the United States and Britain began an atomic bomb program called the "Manhattan Project". The project was initially driven by the fear that Germany might be developing an atomic bomb. Research and development continued after Germany was defeated, however, despite the fact that there was little likelihood of the Japanese making an atomic bomb. It culminated in the design, production and detonation of three nuclear weapons in 1945. The first was on July 16: "Trinity", the world's first nuclear test, near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The second was the weapon "Little Boy", detonated on August 6, over the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The third was the weapon "Fat Man", detonated on August 9, over the city of Nagasaki, Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instantly destroyed. The atomic shock waves killed all those within a wide radius and in the area beyond radiation meant many more died or suffered from leukemia over the coming days, months and years. The survivors, known in Japan as "Hibakusha" and their children suffered social exclusion by a society terrified of radioactive contamination. Many Hibakusha have made their tragedy the basis for campaigning for a world in which their will be no more Hiroshima's or Nagasaki's.
Hiroshima
At 8.15am on the 6th August 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" - the first such device to be detonated in military action - was dropped from a B-29 Superfortress, the "Enola Gay". The official Hiroshima government estimate made in December 1945 is that 140,000 died however, many thousands more have perished since then. After the nuclear attack, Hiroshima was rebuilt as a peace memorial city, and the closest surviving building to the location of the bomb's detonation was designated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.
Nagasaki
On the morning of August 9, 1945, the crew of the American B-29 Superfortress "Bockscar", carrying the nuclear bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" found their primary target, Kokura, to be obscured by cloud. The bad weather conditions and a series of other problems led them to go on to a secondary target - the industrial area of Nagasaki. The number of Nagasaki residents killed is believed to be 100,000.
At the time the US government justified the use of the atomic bombs by speaking about revenge for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese refusal to accept the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. In later years, however, the US government has argued that it was militarily necessary to drop the bombs because the only alternative was an invasion of Japan which would have cost many servicemen their lives.
Right from the start, however, America's most senior Army, Navy and Airforce officers and some top officials denied that there was any military necessity to drop the atomic bombs. In the words of General, later President, Eisenhower, "We did not need to hit them with that awful thing." From decoded Japanese telegrams and other means knew that Japan was militarily defeated and that a combination of American surrender terms which would allow the Japanese to keep their Emperor - which the US did agree to after the dropping of the atomic bombs - and the Soviet Union's forthcoming entry into the war against Japan would most likely lead to a Japanese surrender without any need for an invasion.
Historical evidence
This July the WMD Awareness group - that's a coalition of anti nuclear groups that includes Greenpeace - brought two historians over from the US for a conference to mark the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Mark Selden is a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US and Peter Kuznick, is director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. They gave riveting presentations, the case they made was complex and multi-layered, but in essence it was this.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives show that one of US President Truman's main motives in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was not to avoid having to make an invasion by allied troops, but to limit Soviet expansion in Asia.
They contend that Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves. Furthermore they argue that the US knew both that the Japanese were ready to surrender if guarantees were given that they could keep their Emperor, and that they would very likely surrender if the Soviets were to enter to war in the Pacific, which the Russians had confirmed they would do before the dropping of the bomb.
The historians cited many documents and statements, many by senior military officers and atomic scientists involved in the US nuclear programme.
Watch the interview of professors Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden.
Why is all this relevant today?
The Cold War, which began in response to the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, is over, but this does not mean nuclear weapons have disappeared. Far from it: There are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, more than a thousand of them ready to launch at a moment's notice, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
While the prospect of an all out exchange of arsenals between Russia and the US has receded, the prospects of a nuclear weapon actually being used are perhaps greater today than during the cold war.
Nuclear "powers" have repeatedly refused to give up their arsenals of weapons. This attitude has led to the near collapse of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - the agreement which is supposed to control nuclear arms and lead to eventual total global nuclear disarmament. Moreover, it has contributed to other countries - including India, Pakistan and very likely North Korea - developing their own nuclear weapons in recent years. Nuclear brinkmanship is inevitable in such a climate of nuclear hypocrisy.
In the US George Bush talks openly of developing more robust, more 'usable' nuclear weapons.
Here in the UK the Labour government has quietly changed its policy on nuclear weapons. It used to be the case that the UK agreed it would not launch a nuclear weapons against a non nuclear country - this policy has been quietly abandoned. Labour has also endorsed the use of nuclear weapons - in 1993, then UK Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind, declared that the UK may use its nuclear weapons to protect Britain's "strategic interests" - a pretty wide definition, and well beyond the original one where they would be used if the UK was threatened with a nuclear strike. The current Labour government, despite being strongly pressed to do so by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, has never repudiated the Rifkind doctrine and has, moreover, created a sub-strategic Trident which could be used for exactly this purpose.
What the future holds
During the next parliament the UK government has to decide whether to build a successor to Trident - our current nuclear weapons system. Morally, and possibly legally, as a signatory up to the NPT - the UK should be disarming not ploughing billions of pounds into developing new and more deadly nuclear weapons. The building of new laboratories, the hiring of scientists, and other factors suggests that Blair intends to do no such thing, and unless the public demand it he will happily sign off on a successor to Trident, obviously not seeing Trident as one of the targets in his global "war" against weapons of mass destruction.
Greenpeace was formed in response to the threat of nuclear weapons and has campaign over the years for their elimination. We believe that only when all countries pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith can we begin putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle by banning the use and manufacture of the nuclear materials at the heart of the bomb.
