Reflections on a Visit to Nagasaki
What we have forgotten and what we can still learn
Never Forget
I managed to visit Nagasaki about one year after I visited Hiroshima. It gave me a lot of time reflect on the state of the world since that last visit. How peace seems so much farther away and nuclear proliferation all the more likely. As the end of the Second World War fades further into memory, it seems as if the world has forgotten its lessons.
The atom bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th 1945, came only three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, which killed 140,000 people. The United States, led by President Harry S. Truman, wanted nothing less than an unconditional surrender to end the war. The dropping of the Nagasaki bomb wiped out 14,000 homes and killed 40,000 initially, though that toll rose to 100,000 from the resulting radiation. By today’s standards, and even those of the time, this was a war crime, but one done amidst a total war where all sides were commited to brutality.
I remain agnostic as to whether or not the atomic bombings were necessary. The position of the Nagasaki Peace Museum was quite clear. They quoted a 1945 petition by several scientists, including Leo Szilard (who supported the creation of an atom bomb as a Nazi deterrent), which asked President Truman not use the atom bombs until “the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.”
The museum also highlighted the conclusion of a 1947 US Strategic Bombing Survey, an expert assessment of the Allied bombings during World War II which concluded that “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about an unconditional surrender” and that before the end of 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.” I should add that historians Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and Barton Bernstein (who are both critical of atom bombings), dispute the accuracy of this conclusion for undermining the role of the Soviet invasion.
They also quoted from the memoirs of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a general of the European front of war, who disagreed with the decision to drop the atom bombs:
“I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
I am always haunted by the question as to how things might have turned out had the alternatives been pursued. Alternatives such as allowing the Japanese to keep the Emperor in place (as eventually happened), instead of insisting on unconditional surrender. Or perhaps using a demonstration bombing as a threat before killing civilians. These alternatives should weigh heavily on those of us who were taught that the atom bomb was either the only way, or the least terrible way to end the war.
What should also weigh on us are the atrocities that the Imperial Japanese army were committing all across Asia at the time. I also visited a small, privately-run museum called the Nagasaki Museum for Human Rights and Peace. It detailed the cruel labor the Japanese army often demanded of its colonial subjects, as well as the nightmarish human experiments conducted in China by Unit 731.
When critics of the atom bombings say that Japan was ready to surrender, we have to ask ourselves what exactly surrender meant. Would it have meant relinquishing the colonies across Asia? Would it have meant keeping the fascist government which launched the war in place? In lieu of an invasion, we could have launched blockade of Japan or have continued the aerial firebombings, but this would’ve undoubtedly lengthened the war, and how many more Asian civilians would’ve died in the meantime? Even after the first atom bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, the leaders of Japan’s Imperial Navy dismissed the idea that the US had any more, and even when the Emperor did plan to surrender, some soldiers attempted a last-minute coup against him. Those of us who are understandably skeptical of the decision to drop the atom bombs before pursuing the alternatives, must also consider the consequences of not using them.
In the end, the lessons of Nagasaki are twofold: Nuclear weapons should never be used again and neither should civilians be indiscriminately bombed in war. The nuclear devastation of Nagasaki revealed not only the depth of suffering that humans can inflict on one another, but also that we have now crossed the threshold of possible self-extermination. The atom bombing, though, was only an extension of existing war policy. The terror bombing of civilians across Japan preceeded the horrors of Nagasaki. To stop nuclear war, we must stop war itself.
The Atomic Age
To be sure, nuclear weapons have never been used since 1945. The fear of them has kept their usage at bay, but for how long? There have been numerous close calls, such as in 1962, when the Soviet officer Vasili Arkhipov refused to fire a nuclear torpedo at US ships during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or in 1983, when Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov refused to fire a nuclear missile at the US in response to a false alarm from its early warning system. We won’t always have such careful judgment in the years ahead, and if current trends continue, the return of nuclear warfare appears more and more likely.
Consider the reckless and arrogant behavior of U.S. President Donald Trump. In 2018, Trump withdrew from President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, which had been agreed to by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, even Russia and China. The deal was the only mechanism in place to limit Iranian nuclear enrichment. After the breaking of that deal, Iran has tripled its uranium stockpiles. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it’s almost certain that its rival Saudi Arabia will want one as well. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s recent security pact with Pakistan could put them under their nuclear umbrella. We could soon see a nuclear arms race across the Middle East. Will this make the region safer?
Though the region’s biggest problem now is Israel’s terrorizing of the Palestinians. For a long time now, Israel’s open disregard for international law has been encouraged by the United States, and we are now seeing the consequences of having done so. Israel is nuclear-armed state that has run a cruel military occupation of West Bank Palestinians since 1967 and a severe blockade of Gazan Palestinians since 2007. The refusal of Israel’s far-right Benjamin Netanyahu to dismantle this apartheid helped fuel the anger behind the 2023 massacres by Hamas which killed 1,195 people. While Israel had the right to hold these criminals to account, it had no right to wage collective punishment against all Palestinians. The reckless violence and starvation waged in Gaza against seemingly every man, woman, and child can no longer simply be called a war. It is a genocide that has claimed over 65,000 lives. A suspended Israeli heritage minister, Amichai Eliyahu, once floated the idea of using a nuclear bomb on Gaza. He may be on the fringe, but those once considered fringe now are very powerful in Israel. The longer this dreadful war goes on, will the nuclear option seem more desirable to Israel’s far-right?
It seems inconceivable that a nation founded in the wake of the Holocaust would perpetuate a genocide, but then we must not forget Israel’s founding crime: the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war. This wound was never properly healed. For while Jews from around the world have the right of return to Israel, Palestinian refugees and their descendants have no right to return to their familial homes. Israel’s failure to resolve this problem has allowed it to metastasize into tragedy that calls into question the legitimacy of Zionism itself. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict likely won’t end in nukes, but even if it doesn’t, this war may cause the Palestinians and other Arab nations to seek them out in defense. The fact that Israel has recklessly bombed Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Qatar during the Gaza war will only make a stronger case for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
If we look to East Asia, we see that North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has fifty nuclear weapons which he claims for deterrence. There is some truth to Kim’s rationale when he says that Iraq’s Saddam and Libya’s Gaddafi were overthrown not long after giving up their nukes. Kim also cites the joint U.S. — South Korea military exercises as war provocations which necessitate his nuclear deterrence. Even so, Kim’s reasoning falls apart after some examination. U.S. troops haven’t invaded the North since the Korea War. Compare this to Cuba’s Fidel Castro, whose installation of Soviet missiles only came one year after the CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow him. Were there any similar attempts from the U.S. to prompt Kim’s nuclear ambitions?
Now, if suspending the U.S.-South Korea military exercises genuinely led to North Korean de-nuclearization, it could be worth supporting, but Kim has given little indication that he would do so. When China proposed a mutual freeze of ending U.S. military exercises and stopping North Korean nuclear tests in 2017, the North agreed, but only on the condition that they keep their remaining nukes. Despite Trump halting the “war games” military exercises with South during his first term, Kim refused to destroy a single nuclear warhead. One wonders how Kim would respond if South Korea decided to pursue their own nuclear deterrent using his logic. If the South wants a nuke, they can simply point to the North’s actions as justification. Furthermore, Kim’s support for nuclear security only applies to his own country, as he is currently aiding Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine.
We are now in the third year of the illegal Russian invasion, which has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians. Like Israel’s actions in Gaza, it is a genocidal massacre. Russia, which has more nuclear weapons that any other nation, invaded Ukraine to prevent them from joining the EU and leaving their sphere of influence. Ukrainians now probably look back with regret that they destroyed their own nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Security guarantees from the West were promised, but never came through. Russia’s Vladimir Putin is also not above nuclear threats against Ukraine and has suspended his nation’s participation in the New START nuclear arms treaty with America.
Putin’s aggression in Ukraine sends two messages to the world. The first is that nuclear powers can do as they please to smaller nations. The second is that if you don’t have a nuclear weapon, you’ll be unable to defend yourself from these powers. The only solution here must be non-nuclear military deterrence. If this war ends in Ukrainian victory, it is imperative that Ukraine be admitted into the EU and NATO.
We could also see the Russian invasion repeat itself in Taiwan. China under Xi Jinping has said that re-unification with Taiwan is inevitable and has refused to renounce the use of force to do so. China has also referred to Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, as a “parasite” while holding threatening military drills around the island. Some might think that Xi is bluffing here, that he wouldn’t be so foolish as to cross this line, but consider all the lines that he has already crossed. Under his rule, he effectively ended democracy in Hong Kong despite the fact that the “one nation, two systems” policy was not set to expire until 2047. Like Netanyahu and Putin, Xi has also funded genocide. Xi has detained over a million Uyghur and Turkic Muslims in concentration camps while forcibly sterilizing Uyghur women to limit their population. So when he speaks openly of invading Taiwan, we should take him at his word. The only force keeping Taiwan safe, for now, is America’s military support. If this deterrence is lost, then Taiwan may consider acquiring a nuclear weapon, an outcome which would no doubt reverberate across Asia. If we wish to prevent this, it is imperative that U.S. support for Taiwan remain ironclad.
Though even nuclear deterrence has its limits in preventing war. America’s nuclear arsenal did not stop 9/11, which led to the disastrous War on Terror. Israel’s nuclear weapons did not prevent the October 7th massacres, which led to the Gaza genocide. Nor does nuclear deterrence necessarily prevent war between nuclear powers. Consider the case of India and Pakistan. Like Israel and Palestine, these nations were born from a bloody partition plan in 1947 which failed to resolve the underlying ethnic tensions or create a lasting peace. India’s first nuclear test was in 1974 and Pakistan’s was in 1998. The public knowledge of nuclear arms in either country has not stopped military conflict between them.
Nuclear weapons didn’t prevent the 1999 Kargil War over Kashmir, which killed 500 Indian soldiers and 400 Pakistani soldiers. Nuclear weapons didn’t prevent the 2016–2018 border skirmishes that killed and displaced hundreds in Kashmir. Nor did nuclear weapons stop the 2025 Indo-Pakistani crisis, which was triggered by a terror attack and led to crossfire that killed dozens of civilians. The fear of nukes may prevented these conflicts from spiraling out of control, but for how long will that status quo be respected?
Resolving these tensions will be complex, but the territorial disputes and jihadist attacks in Kashmir seem to be the connective tissue in this ongoing violence. A good first step would be for both India and Pakistan to end the abuses of Kashmiris by their police forces and listen to the grievances of the peoples there. On another level, there needs to be an internal reckoning with the poisonous ideologies taking root in both nations. India must reckon with the Hindu nationalism that is degrading its democracy. Pakistan must reckon with its history of aiding Kashmiri militants and work to disarm the terrorists who hide within its borders.
America under Trump is now the greatest threat to peace in our world. We have threatened to invade our allies Canada and Greenland. We have proudly continued to fund genocide in Gaza. We have repeatedly crippled Ukrainian self-defense in the face of Russian imperialism. We have turned our noses to the climate crisis and have sought to drown the planet in oil. We have committed open murder on the Caribbean without warrant or congressional approval. We have illegally deported Venezuelan migrants to concentration camps in El Salvador to be tortured. We have cut life-saving USAID around the globe, which has needlessly led to hundreds of thousands of deaths from disease and malnutrition. We are hurting the global economy through coercive tariffs to alienate our allies and bully nations to our will. The MAGA cult is antithetical to peace and cooperation. The movement must be dismantled or disempowered before any path towards that end is achieved.
The Lesson of the Hidden Christians
While I was in Nagasaki, I also visited the shrine dedicated to the Christians who were persecuted and martyred by the Tokugawa Shogunate for over two centuries from 1600 until the Meiji Restoration of 1868. At a time of isolation, oppression, and fear, these Christians persisted in keeping their faith alive. That is an admirable resistance to cruelty which could be a lesson for us all.
The Hidden Christians of Japan had little reason to think that the oppression they faced would end in their lifetimes. They had little reason, outside of their faith, to think that their foreign religion would one day be accepted across Japan. Theirs was a dark night of the soul, but though they could not clearly see the light, they believed that one day dawn would break.
In many ways, the resilient spirit of the Hidden Christians is present in the “hibakusha” (those who have survived the atom bombs). They have experienced the worst of war, but they turned that tragedy into advocacy. They worked to educate others about the horrors of nuclear war and fought to see that it never happened again. There are less than 100,000 hibakusha left. Their voices will soon be gone, and we will have to carry on their mission for ourselves.
The road ahead is clear. We must stand against warmongering and authoritarianism. We must resist fascism at home and support anti-fascism abroad. We must stand for compassion, though cruelty is popular. We must stand for truth, though lies are popular. We must honor history, though the misuse of it is popular. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, the world seems closer to societal breakdown than ever before. If we don’t want to tragedies of our forefathers to be repeated, then we must have the courage to stand for the better world that they suffered for. Even if it is something as small as making the world around you a little more peaceful, that doesn’t make it any less meaningful.
