Atomic bomb development, deployment, and effects on Japanese civilians

The Atomic Bomb and Its Effects on Japan and the World Modern Japanese culture is fraught with paradox. A nation constructed on ancient Shinto and Buddhist ideologies, its people have been conditioned to infuse old-world practices and philosophies into all aspects of life, from dining, working and recreation to aesthetics, religion and art. But amid this highly conscious preservation of tradition are a stifling number of indications that Japan is a vastly different nation than it was only fifty years ago. Steeped in the implications, tastes and peculiarities of Eastern life, Japan is also an example of Western integration at its most thorough. The bulk of its history will show that Japan was an imperialist force of the highest order, acting on intentions of militaristic expansion well into the twentieth century with an undeniable focus on the imposition of demonstrably Japanese ideologies. Today, though, we recognize Japan as both an esteemed colleague in the global domination of capitalism and, from a much more implicitly understood angle, an American outpost for the physical and theoretical disbursement of democracy. Naturally, such a great chasm between historical identities has rendered Japan downright schizophrenic in some respects, with consumerism and ultra-modernity somehow peacefully coexisting alongside tradition and historical reverence. But its relative success, especially when compared to the countless examples of failed nation building in recent and classic history, does not remove the graveness of its origin. Japan's imperialist push, which began with a 1931 invasion of Manchuria and ended when the United States deployed two atomic warheads at Hiroshima and Nagasaki fourteen years later, would be its last gasp and the threshold to a period of unprecedented reconstruction. The socially revised Japan that stands as one of America's clearest and staunchest allies today, in the aftermath of World War II, underwent a facelift of massive spiritual, political and economic proportions. For all intents and purposes, the atomic bombs that would be dropped over Japan would wipe a nation's history clean and begin a new slate. Most immediately visible even in the first days that followed the atomic strikes of August 1945 was a jagged does of reality that the emperor was only human. Japanese Emperor Hirohito, whose name itself translates to the claim that he was bestowed upon the people by heaven, was publicly perceived as a divine figure. Indeed, the Japanese royal legacy was directly correlated to the popular understanding of the Shinto faith which delivered the ruling family. As such, the emperor was generally believed by his subjects to be more than a man. He was a symbol of Japan; its faith, its honor and its soul. (Cook 1993) So his radio address to the people on August 14th, 1945, admitting defeat and asking all Japanese citizens to follow suit, was inescapably devastating to the psyche of an entire nation. Thousands of years of imperial rule effectively came to an end when Emperor Hirohito advised those loyal to him to accept the terms of the conquerors. Those terms were nothing short of complete submission to the United States. When the Japanese were forced to accept the radical circumstances of military occupation and realignment in a Western image, the emperor's authority was subverted to little more than the jurisdiction over an honorary title. And in a famous photograph that depicts Supreme Allied Commander Douglas MacArthur towering over his recently deposed opponent, Hirohito, the Japanese were presented an image that shattered all illusions. (Cook 1993) Among said illusions were the divinity of the emperor, and more troubling to the Japanese self-image, the unparalleled power of mother Japan. The man in whom many had invested their unwavering faiths of patriotism and religiosity was impotent. Among the major changes provoked by the dropping of the atomic bombs, this would be significant. The change in the identity of Japan would have vast future implications to the region, altering the orientation of what had long been a military power and an imperial scourge of the Asian continent. With the dropping of the atomic bombs and the psychological and practical struggles of rebuilding, Japan had given over to the authority of the United States. This would create a new power dynamic in which the influence of the United States would spread both to Japan and to its broader region. (McClain 2001) The effect on Japan's morale was certainly damaging. And the political climate there following the war was dark and indecipherable. In no small way, the losses Japan suffered during World War II were devastating. Often characterized as having wiped out a generation, the fourteen year war yielded 2.3 million military casualties and 800,000 civilian deaths. But beyond this monumental loss, Japan suffered what many viewed to be the emasculating occupation of the United States beginning with the sheer and unthinkable carnage produced by the atomic strikes. (Cook 1993) In accordance with his surrender, Emperor Hirohito sought to forego the war crimes trials that faced his military leaders by becoming the strongest and most visible proponent of westernization. And in doing so, he welcomed General Douglas MacArthur, a powerhouse symbol of American authority, to preside over Japan. The six years of American military occupation that followed the war introduced a number of new elements to the Japanese political identity. First and foremost, the United States addressed the pressing concern of Japan's dejection over defeat by disarming it. A nation who had spent the whole of its history with an emphasis on the warrior tradition was stripped of its capacity to wage war. Both as a safeguard against the potentially hostile outgrowth of resentment and as an unavoidable retaliation for its aggression, the United States deemed Japan a nation prohibited from possessing a standing army. Though for economic and political reasons, the United States would attempt in vain to shift on this position in the 1970s, it would become a distinctive detail of Japanese culture that great warrior of lure was dead. And there was natural frustration for the Japanese people, who initially viewed MacArthur as a threat to the Japanese way of life. And it cannot be denied that there is evidence to support that concern in many respects, perhaps the most notable of which was the strict censorship of Japanese media during that time which prevented any sentiments contrary to America or reconstruction from reaching the general public. Still, the Japanese psyche could not be removed from the experience of the atomic blasts, which revealed a level of destruction and death that the civilian population never imagined possible in its unwavering support for the Emperor and the war in the Pacific. A compelling source located during the research process underlines this reality by displaying a series of artistic depictions of the atomic blast. Indeed, in the years to follow the nuclear attacks on Japan, a wealth of artistic expression has been produced as something of a shared national coping mechanism. Thus, the 'Ground Zero' (1974) presentation is important in understanding the effects on Japan of the nuclear attacks. For works produced by such a demonstrably virulent and ethnically charged international conflict, those commemorating the experience of having witnessing the atomic events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not surprisingly trained to focus on the human elements of the tragedy. Its seems there is very little evidence of the aggressor in these portraits, but only of the deeply personal and collective suffering that intermingled horribly in these works. Recurrent notions of indelible visual trauma, guilt and grief are spanned across these various images, which stand as the last testament to the consequences of popular support for the war. Thus, one telling segment of the "Ground Zero" display, entitled 'Ghosts,' points out that countless initial survivors of the atomic blasts were left without what had been revered as the protective forces of the emperor. Certainly, support had begun to wane for the war as a whole when its duration and mounting domestic carnage had begun to suggest that the Japanese policy-makers were not being fully candid with the public about the war effort's effectiveness. The support of the Japanese people may be seen as betrayed by the sheer defenselessness and lacking preparedness of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Ground Zero" offers a populace at ease in a regular morning's bustle when the first bomb is dropped Hiroshima. In addition to this suggestion that many Japanese citizens had fully no idea the extent to which the danger of the conflict had escalated for them, there is the even more devastating sense that the public allegiance could not be repaid in a time of grave need. Of the victims who had emerged from the initial blast with terrible burns and countless deceased family members, the display asks "where were these processions heading? Here the enormity of the disaster became compounded, for there was in fact almost nowhere to go." (Dower 1974) The loyalty of the Japanese to their war machine would be met with a fate equal to that of the machine itself, and the entrusted power of its government to demonstrate Japanese superiority on its behalf had been redeemed by this monstrous reduction of a proud people. This denotes that Japanese culture had been significantly altered both by its defeat at the hands of the United States and by the occupation which were to follow. But in reality, the changes in Japan would only be a first chapter in the narrative of atomic power. Indeed, the devastating detonations on the ground in Japan were a window into a new frontier in making warfare. Indeed, on August 6th, 1945, the world entered a new age. The end of World War II, presaged by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, introduced the world to the nuclear era. The next five decades, unfolding under the shadow of the Cold War, would be underscored by the continuing threat of nuclear war. With major conflicts in such settings as the Korean Peninsula, Cuba and Vietnam functioning as remote nation- building contests between the world's two major superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union began a race for the accumulation of nuclear weapons that brought to bear an alarming reality for the world. The events in Japan would be a stark foreshadowing of the new and enormous dangers which man had become capable of imposing on his fellow. The presence of nuclear power in global affairs had come to play a dominant sub-textual role in the implicative considerations of war and diplomacy. Even so, this condition subsisted without any international controls for more than twenty years. This was so until 1968, when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was signed. This agreement "represents the world's single most important multilateral nuclear arms control agreement, with the largest membership, and it remains the most successful exemplar of arms control." (Rauf 1999) This would show a new concern for the world community invoked by a shared witnessing of the first attacks. Largely a response to a heightened Cold War, where theatres in Southeast Asia, South America and Central America revealed the genuinely global perils posed by the now nuclear armed U.S. and Soviet spheres of influence, the non-proliferation agenda includes the prevention of the continued stockpiling of weapons, the exchange of nuclear secrets between nations and the development of subterranean nuclear programs in non-nuclear states. The international initiative represents an opportunity to place a collective safeguard agreement into action which would prevent the realization of the worst-case scenario escalation of hostilities between the two superpowers. After the revelations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the internationalization of the power-struggle inherently bore with it "the threat of total annihilation." (Debat et al 2006) This is to indicate that a great many organizations and regulatory groups have emerged in order to prevent the realization of this threat. The attacks on Japan at the end of World War II would up the stakes of global conflict in a way that has stimulated considerable preventative policy organization. The result is today a continued conflict over who is entitled to nuclear power and who is not. Many developing nations such as North Korea and Iran claim they are being denied the right to generate nuclear energy to improve domestic energy policies, but political differences with the world order have also caused speculation about the safety of nuclear power in such hands. This highlights another key effect of the atomic weapons, which essentially altered the course of an otherwise potentially valuable energy source. Though the use of nuclear power during the 1950's seemed to provide prospects for complete energy independence and resource diversification, its dangers would also become gradually apparent over the course of the 20th century, with safety and environmental concerns contributing to a mixed public impression of civil nuclear energy. The social impact of nuclear energy can be measured most notably today in both the popular perception of atomic power and the repercussions of its relative decline as a major source for energy both in the U.S. and internationally. In spite of its auspicious promise during the Cold War era, nuclear power has been the subject of intense debate and controversy, with social consciousness generally attaching weaponized nuclear power and civil nuclear power in an inextricable relationship. (Lipper 2000) As a result of this social environment, "the shutdown of older plants and the lack of investment in newer plants in the United States has established an imbalance in nuclear energy production, which is expected to have a significant impact on the social and economic structure of the nuclear industry, as well as society at large." (Kritsky 1999) This is to indicate that the weaponization of nuclear power demonstrated by the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would alter the course of what might otherwise have been a productive part of creating energy independence for nations both developing and developed. The association between nuclear power and the images and events of the 1945 strikes remains an indelible force in the continued discussion on the accessibility of nuclear power. Until the United States illustrated the full destructive capability of nuclear power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the extent of damage which could be levied through such weaponry had not been fully appreciated on a psychological level. However, the absolute totality of ground devastation, the horrific nature of the health fallout for those in the radiating vicinity of the blast and the overall toll in terms of both human life and structure had the collective effect of changing forever the social effect of nuclear power. (Eden 2005) The capacity for destruction of which this new and terrifying weapon was capable could ultimately destroy whole cities and nations if used with such intents. The Cold War which followed, then, produced an atmosphere of tension where social interaction reflected a deep suspicion of political, ideological and ethnic differences, underscored by the nationalist emphasis on nuclear capability which endowed both the United States and the Soviet Union. (Biswas 2001) In the era that succeeded World War II, various concerted efforts emerged to stifle the growing prevalence of this weaponry in world affairs. As such, a variety of treaties have been approached as means to discouraging acquisition, development or use of nuclear power within a military context. One of the earliest of these, drafted during the Kennedy Administration, "prohibited nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the oceans and outer space. In essence, it was an environmental treaty that disarmed an outraged public opinion, but allowed nuclear testing to continue underground." (Krieger 2005) Its mostly nominal effect on the actual ability of the U.S. to wage nuclear war, which continued to be augmented during this time, implies that such treaties were typically intended to diffuse populist concern over the negative social implications of such weapons as regular elements of every nation's arsenal. But it is this regularity this would become the most important outcome of the nuclear blasts in Japan. The commitment to levy such attacks would also serve as a concession to unleash on the world the technology capable of reigning down such destruction. For the major powers of the world, these attacks would only hasten respective efforts at harnessing the power of man's atomic knowledge for the purposes of warfare. The United States would prove the thorough nature of this strategy; would illustrate the deep psychological impact on the victims of such a strategy; would illustrate that nuclear weaponization was feasible; and would demonstrate to the rest of the world its willingness to deploy such tactics. Ultimately, this underscores the most prominent and problematic effect of the nuclear strikes. The focus paid in this account to the changes in Japan following the attacks is important in terms of framing our understanding of the effects on a nation, its conditions and its psyche of a full-scale nuclear attack. It illustrates that from a warfare standpoint, the deployment of an atomic bomb is a compelling deterrent for aggression or the sustaining of hostilities. That said, the conditions that were imposed upon Japan by the attacks are all but erased today. The rebuilding of Japan has changed the nation's face entirely, with much of its modernity and cultural schizophrenia speaking to the trauma in its not-too-distant past. Its recovery is rife with difficulties, but it has occurred. By contrast, there is no method which has fully succeeded in preventing the spread of nuclear technology and the capacity to weaponize nuclear energy. This remains one of the most important issues in the areas of world diplomacy and warfare. As the discussion here shows, the scale of the attacks on Japan has encouraged the creation of NGOs, world government agencies and domestic action groups concerned with the prevention of nuclear proliferation. However, this has been an uphill climb ever since the strikes that brought the hostilities of World War II to their official end. As the mushroom clouds cleared over two distinct scenes of outright destruction, a new threat would hang in the air, forever altering the nature of global conflict. Today, this remains a significant presence in the world community, with the images in Hiroshima and Nagasaki never far from the world's collective consciousness.