Ten Reasons to Love the Bomb

American Thinker ^ | August 06, 2010 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

Sixty-five years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we still have not arrived at a true measure of the atomic weapon.  

Through a constant drumbeat -- in large part coming from the left -- nuclear weapons have become our culture's dominant symbol of fear. This is understandable. The photos of the atomic bombings were among the most foreboding ever taken. Few who have contemplated them have not paused to think what their own town might look like after such an attack.

But fear of nuclear weapons has shifted to the metaphysical, attaining something of the aura of absolute evil that Satan and his legions held in the medieval mind. They are referred to in the singular, as "The Bomb", as if only one exists, in some awful, majestic Platonic isolation. They are spoken of as if they are supernatural entities, beyond rational control or comprehension, operating in some mystical twilight on the far side of Morder. They are given powers and capabilities beyond that of any known device. It often appears as a given that a single explosion could utterly destroy civilization from one pole to the other. For these reasons, consideration of the nuclear question remains clouded by horror and awe.

Amid all this, it has become difficult to grasp the simple fact that nuclear weapons have benefits, that they may well be, in Ray Bradbury's words, "The most blessed invention ever devised." But such benefits do exist, as the record clearly shows.

1) The A-bomb Shut Down WW II

It's not necessary to reopen the perennial argument as to whether the atomic bombings were necessary to defeat Japan to acknowledge that they brought the war to an abrupt halt. On August 6^th, it was going strong. By August 14^th, it was over.

WW II had been in progress for six years (closer to eleven, if you were Chinese). It had killed something on the order of 65 million people, a bloodletting unmatched in recorded history. Killing was still going on throughout the territory still occupied by Japan. As August 1945 began, people were dying at the rate of 20,000 a week.

There was no sign that it would stop anytime soon. The Japanese refusal to surrender is a historical fact. Their commitment to fight to the last drop of blood is undeniable. (Anyone who doubts this is advised to read Something Like an Autobiography, the memoirs of the master filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, who was told, along with all other Japanese, that when the U.S. invasion came they were to march to the sea and fling themselves on the advancing troops in the "honorable death of the hundred million". Kurosawa loathed Japanese imperialism. He hated the militarists. He was sick of the war. But still, he said, "I probably would have gone.")

The atomic bombs ended this, not through destructiveness (the March incendiary raids against Tokyo killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.), but by shock. The Japanese military was in the midst of explaining to Emperor Hirohito why the U.S. could have built no more than one bomb when word of the Nagasaki strike arrived. "How many bombs did you say there were?" the emperor reportedly asked.

In the stunned silence following the atomic raids, the voice of reason could be heard at last. No other weapon could have accomplished this.

2) Nuclear Weapons Stopped Stalin in his Tracks

"A weapon to frighten schoolteachers." That was Stalin's opinion of the atomic bomb. Which must mean that Stalin was a schoolteacher, since it certainly frightened him.

Stalin's postwar plans were clear -- to keep his army intact and in the middle of Western Europe, to wait until the war-weary Western Allies cut their occupation forces to the bone, then make his move one deep dark night, sweeping the rest of the pieces -- Western Germany, Austria, France, the Low Countries -- off the table and into his capacious tunic pockets.

He announced several times that he was seriously cutting Soviet occupation forces. This never happened. The Hungarian takeover, the Czech coup, and the Berlin blockade  increased tensions to the breaking point. Stalin was clearly probing to see how far he could go. What stopped him? Not American or British occupation forces, which were derisory. One element alone: that schoolteacher's nightmare, the atomic bomb.

Stalin grew impatient as he got older. According to Russian historians, he had finalized a war plan by the time of his death, scheduled for early 1954. But it is doubtful  that the Politburo, along with the Soviet military, would have allowed it to proceed. They knew better, were well aware of the consequences, and knew who would have to live with them. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, "Nothing concentrates a man's mind so wonderfully as the knowledge that he is to be A-bombed in a fortnight."

3) Atomic Bombs Helped Expose Communist Activity in the U.S.  

It's unlikely that the Soviets would have risked their carefully constructed U.S. spy network for anything less than the atomic bomb. But cracking the Manhattan Project required use of all resources. The NKVD threw everybody available at the program - Klaus Fuchs, Bruno Pontecorvo, Theodore Hall,  Allen Nunn May,  the still unnamed "Perseus", and of the course the Rosenberg ring. When this effort began to unravel, it went completely, exposing agents not even directly connected to the atomic effort and leaving very little of use to the Soviets. When espionage efforts were renewed, it was using professional agents as opposed to the eager Communist Party volunteers of the 30s and 40s.

Nothing revealed the treachery and untrustworthiness of American communists than their willingness to turn the A-bomb secret over to the Soviets. Previously, Americans had responded to communists with bewildered shrugs. After the Rosenberg revelations, this was transformed to healthy contempt and fear. The American Communist Party never recovered.

4) Nukes Kept the Cold War from going Hot

There were numerous occasions -- the recurrent Berlin confrontations, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, crises in Yugoslavia, Laos, Cuba, and the Taiwan Straits -- when the Cold War could have bubbled over into open conflict. A conflict that, given only conventional weapons, might have taken on the character of a Thirty Year's War, with dozens of states destroyed and millions of lives consumed.

Nuclear weapons negated any such outcome. Nukes are not dreadnaughts. If you lose a fleet, you still have your country. When the bombs start falling, you have no guarantee of anything. National leaders considered the odds and decided to wait for another day. That day never came.

5) Atomic Weapons Created Doubt about the Scientific Establishment

This was a subtle but far-reaching effect. Prior to the atomic bomb, scientists were widely viewed as modern priesthood, dedicated to knowledge and truth, beyond any taint of ambition or corruption. The A-bomb cut them down to size. Enamored of the program when it was merely a technical possibility, many scientists turned against the reality, protesting its use against Japan. These actions puzzled and annoyed a public relieved to see an end to the war. When it developed that no small number of these same humanitarians had been involved in the Soviet espionage program, the figure of scientist as high priest vanished forever, replaced by the image of the erratic malcontent who needed to be watched closely.

This is a good thing. In a democracy, no group or profession should be viewed as clerisy, much less as something along the lines of a priesthood. In the 20^th century, scientists were beginning to encroach on the social and political spheres, insisting that their techniques of procedural reductionism were superior to such sloppy practices as democracy (A tendency not yet extinct, as global warming and embryonic stem cells clearly reveal). Blinkered arrogance has brought down many a social class. The atomic bomb went a long way toward saving scientists from themselves

6) Nuclear Weapons Guarantee the Survival of Israel

Like the United States, Israel is an exceptional nation, the only state founded under the aspect of redemption. The Holocaust rendered the establishment of Israel a necessity. As a small state outnumbered both by national entities and in population, Israel required weaponry both unavailable to its enemies while capable of effectively deterring them. Atomic weapons alone met these requirements. The rebirth of virulent anti-Semitism worldwide over the past decade has underlined the necessity of such weapons. As the homeland of the sole people that the modern world attempted to annihilate, Israel has a right to these weapons that no other state possesses.

7) Nuclear Weapons Reveal left-wing Hypocrisy

The left loathes all nuclear weapons -- as long as they belong to the United States.

Throughout the lengthy history of left-wing antinuclear activities, which stretches from the late 1950s to our day, a single target has existed -- the United States. All protests and efforts are aimed at the U.S. and no other country.

The Nuclear Freeze movement of the early 1980s can serve as an example. The USSR had fielded two new nuclear missiles, the SS-19, a weapon useful only as a city destroyer, and the SS-20,  a mobile system targeting Western Europe. The Reagan administration planned to deploy the Pershing II mobile system along with ground-launched cruise missiles to Europe, as well as an advanced new silo-based ICBM, the Peacekeeper   (known at the time as the "MX").

As was true of virtually every Reagan initiative, the plan sparked massive protests, demanding the implementation of a "nuclear freeze" -- a formal promise not to construct or emplace any further nuclear systems. This was backed by the standard run of college students, politicians such as Les AuCoin, who repeatedly misrepresented the status of Soviet weapons, and Dr. Carl Sagan, a well-known scientist who constructed an entire bogus theory, "nuclear winter," to back the campaign. It was understood at the time (and even reported by The New York Times) that the entire movement was financed, coordinated, and overseen by the KGB.

Nuclear freeze required absolutely nothing of the Soviets. The SS-19 and SS-20 systems would remain in operation. Only U.S. weapon systems would be affected, giving the USSR a permanent advantage and possibly ending NATO as a meaningful political and military entity.

Fortunately Reagan let the air out of the nuclear freeze wagon by introducing the Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as "Star Wars", a national defensive system against nuclear attack. The utterly horrified Soviets immediately shifted their resources to meet this new threat. Deprived of Soviet money and guidance, the freeze movement collapsed, its only accomplishment a vastly increased level of mistrust and contempt for left-wing activities among the general public.

The same attitude survives today. While Barack Obama is eager to eliminate the sole nuclear weapons within his power -- those of the U.S.--- his efforts against the infinitely more dangerous threat of an Iranian nuclear force can be defined as futile to nonexistent at best.  

8) Nuclear Weapons Underline the Magnanimity of the United States

The U.S. could have become the New Rome after WW II, an unmatched power ruling the globe through force and terror. We could have answered Stalin's belligerence with flights of bombers headed east, and then demanded that the world behold the wreckage of a blazing, irradiated Russia while awaiting their orders from Washington.

But it would have been no good, because we'd eventually have suffered the fate of Rome as well. We had better things to do -- setting out on an attempt to build something like a truly decent society, with which we remain involved to this day, despite throwbacks like Obama. (Really, his ideas are so 19^th century -- he should wear high collars and a pince-nez.) In ages to come, this will not be forgotten. If the decent society eventually becomes universal, it will look back on the U.S. with admiration. If not, if we see a return to international medievalism, it will be regarded with bewilderment. Either way, the U.S. will be known for all time as the nation which held absolute power, and refused to use it. I, for one, am proud of this.

9) Nuclear Weapons are an Oddly Rational Weapon

The curious thing about nuclear weapons is that while the concept is simplicity itself -- just get enough pure U 235 or Pu 239 and bang them together -- the details are excruciating and difficult to master. Uranium or Plutonium must be located, mined, and refined. Weapons must be designed, built, and tested -- all of which leave signs that are easily traced by an effective intelligence service. It's next to impossible to sneak one through. (Though Pakistan's A.Q. Khan, with aid from the Clinton administration, came close.)

It's easy to imagine a process or device that could be simply designed, easily constructed, and capable of horrendous damage. In fact, we don't have to imagine it; we can simply point to biological and chemical weapons. But neither possesses the potency of nuclear weapons, which inhabit a pinnacle of their own. So no simple deterrent to nukes exists -- they stand alone. This goes a long way toward keeping the peace.

10) They are an Incredible Human Achievement -- on More Levels than One

The ability to create such a thing, to actually tap into and utilize one of the basic forces of the universe -- the binding energy of the nucleus -- is astonishing in and of itself.

But even more breathtaking is the undeniable evidence of our wisdom in not using this power. Throughout the Yalta Period, we were inundated with predictions that universal destruction was inevitable, if not imminent, that humanity would find its apotheosis scrabbling amidst glowing ruins for the last can of baked beans. Books, articles, television shows, and film after film -- Fail-Safe, Dr. Strangelove, A Boy and his Dog, Threads, The Day After, Testament -- all retailed the same despairing vision. (Well, Kubrick at least made it look like fun.)

It never happened. Looking back, we can see that it was never going to happen. Human beings are simply not as perverse, foolish, and self-destructive as the modernist temperament insists. That humanity could harness such a power, and then decide not to utilize it, says something very profound, and in no small way impressive, about the human animal. It's a curious truth that despite their contraventions, both religious and secular belief systems are gripped by the myth of man's origin as a killer -- the murder of Abel by Cain on one hand, and other represented by 2001's Moonwatcher, whose first use of a tool is to turn it into a weapon.

But the years since 1945 have shown us that the killer ape is not the alpha and omega of the human story. We have stepped away from our bloody origins, we are no longer slaves of murderous instinct. We learn from our errors and missteps. So hope does exist both for the project of civilization and the human mission in a cold and lonely universe. Without the burden of atomic weapons, we might not know this. Knowledge leads to greater knowledge, and from this process, we occasionally attain to wisdom.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.

[vanilla swirl]

“Well, 65 years after the event as we move further and further away from that amazing climactic end of WWII people seem to be more and more ignorant about how the world arrived at that point in 1945. People, kids and the population in general read far less and know less about that terrible time in history.”

I am going through a stack of Life/Look and other magazines found in my inlaws’ garage from that time period. We are not the first to be lied to and manipulated by the media. These were (including various radio outlets) the equivalent of the Internet of those days. Most obvious were stories (at least two) about Stalin and how he was just like your kindly old grandfather.

We don’t realize how good we have it now! During that era FDR was almost universally loved. There were some that pointed out his socialism but even that was not considered as dangerous and shocking as it is today. The Communist Party was discussed openly then. The MSM today will not discuss Communism or Socialism openly because “they is them”! There was even open discussion about what the world would look like after the war, whether it would be run by a “one-world government” or not and whether free market capitalism would survive.

Obama has been compared to FDR and maybe he thinks he can be like FDR but this is a different age.
We have never had the freedom that we have now.
We have never had the access to information we have now.
Yes, the majority of the people are still “sheeple” but there is a huge and growing populace that is pushing back against socialism.
I am encouraged.
The Commies stood a much better chance with FDR, Johnson, or Carter.
My only worry is that the train has left the station and it is too late to stop it.

[driftless2]

You still have people, mostly leftists, arguing that Japan was on the verge of surrendering without the use of the bomb. Then why didn’t they surrender after Hiroshima was bombed? Given the bushido attitude of the Japanese military and the fighting to the last man on many islands, I doubt nothing less than either full-scale invasion resulting in the deaths of millions of Japanese and about one hundred thousand Allied deaths or the cataclysm of the atomic bomb could convince them to surrender. We know what happened.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Excellent essay!

[patton]

“replaced by the image of the erratic malcontent who needed to be watched closely.”

Hey now...

[Grampa Dave]

“Using the carnage of Iwo Jima and Okinawa as a yardstick, estimates of our casualties for the invasion of Japan were one million. Probably double or triple that for Japanese. So the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved a heckuva lot of lives.”

With the suicidal thought processes of the Japanese, the costs to our Navy would have been incredible. Then our land forces would have faced a war that might have lasted for a decade in Japan.

One of my uncles, a first Cav Sgt, was on his way home to say “good bye” to his family due to the impending invasion of Japan after years of fighting brutal and mentally ill Japanese soldiers on various islands, the Japanese had seized before and after Pearl Harbor.

My Dad had two cousins, who were like brothers to him, were heading home from Europe’s battlefields to say goodbye to their families. Before heading to Japan for the really bad invasion.

These three warrios and their families were very glad the two bombs did their job and stopped the war. That enabled them to live long and full lives. There were millions like them, who got to say good bye to war, thanks to those 2 bombs.

The Japanese at that time were cruel and heartless invaders of China and the Pacific islands. If the bombs had not been dropped millions of Japanese and probably a million of our troops would have perished.

[neverdem]

I’ve got my “Rumsfeld Thank You” letter, and my RVN Campaign medals, but my America is dying, and for what?

I've have read a number of times that the U.S. intervention in Vietnam was critical to the eventual demise of the U.S.S.R. I can't cite the references.

We have never had the freedom that we have now.

I beg to differ. Can you both be right? Who knows?

I have my doubts about the kids these days. With all of their tattoos, body piercings, weird hairdoos, etc., they strike me as terribly insecure and lacking in self confidence. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many of these kids can't do anything worthwhile, so the only way to get any attention is to be or look outrageous.

When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country

[vanilla swirl]

“We have never had the freedom that we have now.”

The point I was trying to make is that we have the opportunity to research more information IF WE WANT TO than any other time in history.

What we do with it determines the future of the USA (the world?)

[neverdem]

A Classic Evolution Policy Blunder

The Big Lie of Preventive Care

The Renewable Electricity Standard is a Hoax, a Fraud, and a Rip-Off S. Fred Singer

Statement on Elena Kagan’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court (Wayne LaPierre & Chris W. Cox)

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Quix]

THANKS THANKS.

[caveat emptor]

Thanks. By some estimates, one more and I will pass the US male average (75.65). OTOH that number is from the CIA.

[OneWingedShark]

>I have my doubts about the kids these days. With all of their tattoos, body piercings, weird hairdoos, etc., they strike me as terribly insecure and lacking in self confidence.

I’d probably qualify as one of “the kids” as I’m less than 30. However, I do have a bit of a less-common perspective, being home-schooled before college.
It seems to me that “group projects” that academia is so fond of are designed to subsume the individual into “the collective group;” I find such group-work to be very unsatisfying: either all my input is ignored/discarded by the rest of the group OR I’m one of the [few] individuals pulling the group along. That, as a “fact/way of life,” cannot be good for someone’s self-confidence.

Then there’s the ‘authority issue,’ where it seems that the following circular logic applies: those in authority are generally good/uncorrupted because if they were bad/corrupt they would not be in an authority position. {And whoa! to whomever should DARE to claim that the some authorities assume powers that are not within their purview/legitimate-authority: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2560780/posts?page=93#93 }

>Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that many of these kids can’t do anything worthwhile, so the only way to get any attention is to be or look outrageous.

I hate to say it, but I think that many of these ‘kids’ are bombarded with the message that they *can’t* do anything ‘impactful’, that they are powerless and hence incapable of doing something worthwhile. The link above shows a direct and blatant conflict between my State Constitution and state law; whenever I bring it up to someone [legislator/DA/LEO/etc] I am usually ‘blown off’ with excuses/rationalizations about how the state has similar ‘rules’/’laws’ as to the one that I found {and they bug me as well} or how they are for my own safety... nobody seems concerned about the logical-contradiction there, or that if such a contradiction exists it sets up “precedent” [*spit*] for other contradictions.

{My State Constitution also has a section within its Bill of Rights which declares that nobody is to be “denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship.” If the state can pass laws which blatantly violate and/or ignore the State Constitution then it surely CAN prohibit someone from passing out politically-aimed literature explaining that abortion *is* murder, or that homosexuality *is* a sin, or any other thing that the state may not agree with.}

[caveat emptor]

"No matter how new-age you get, old age gonna kick your ass". Utah Phillips, American folk singer

[Wonder Warthog]

"WW II had been in progress for six years (closer to eleven, if you were Chinese). It had killed something on the order of 65 million people, a bloodletting unmatched in recorded history."

Untrue. The cost in lives of socialist/communist governments has been greater, as much as twice as large. And in most cases, those killed have been "noncombatants", whose only crime is not buying the idea that socialism is the cure for all ills of society. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini were all socialists.

[GATOR NAVY]

I visited Hiroshima in 2002 and was shocked to see how the Japanese present that event in thier museum. To sum up, it seems that for some unkown reason on a warm August morning in 1945 a shiny, single B-29 appeared in the sky and dropped this horrible, ihumane weapon on these quiet, tranquil and peace-loving Japanese civilians.

That was exactly my impression of the Nagasaki museum when I first visited in 1986 and again in 1991. Sometime in the mid-'90s the museum was updated and when it I went again in 1997 there was at least some context, something which was totally missing before.

I didn't make it to Hiroshima until 2008. I saw a little context, but not much.

[Netz]

I saw Japanese comic book style renditions of WWII history taught at the elementary school level and I must admit, it was very disturbing to see the Americans being routed in every comic box image. It made me think of our comic books always showing the Japanese being blown up or and “Zero” falling from the sky with a wing on fire. In their books it was the complete opposite. If this what they are taught, there can be no true reckoning for the Japanese people.

[archy]

During WW II, would Japan have used the atomic bomb on America if they were able? YOU BETCHA!

Japan's *dirty bomb* attack on San Francisco, delivered via submarine-launched aircraft, was scheduled for Late August. More info in FReeppost *here*.

[Still Thinking]

They are given powers and capabilities beyond that of any known device. It often appears as a given that a single explosion could utterly destroy civilization from one pole to the other. For these reasons, consideration of the nuclear question remains clouded by horror and awe.

Which goes to show you how smart antis are because they've been used twice in war and many many times in testing and what survived is what the opponents think will be lost if they're used. Go figure.