Lessons in nuclear politics, post Hiroshima

The 78th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki directs us to explore the ground realities and perceptions of realpolitik in today’s world.

Climate change has gained widespread attention with a profusion of intentions and actions and stands as a global priority intricately tied to development goals. Within this context, how should we reflect upon the anniversary of the brutal bombings?

On the one hand, the pursuit of national security and economic development represents a progressive world. On the other hand, the recent war of Russia on Ukraine raises concerns about insecurity, invasion, forced migration, and the absence of peace. Adding to the complexity is the looming threat of Russia using nuclear weapons to end the war.

This same goal mirrors the United States' intent when it dropped 15-kiloton uranium bombs on Hiroshima and 25-kiloton plutonium bombs on Nagasaki in August 1945, effectively ending World War II but at a devastating human cost.

Professor Thomas Shelling of Columbia University said in both his book and lectures that the bombs were perceived as a solution to ending the war. Morally presented, it saved soldiers’ lives, about 250,000 of them on both sides—the allies and the Japanese. The Hiroshima bombing, "Little Boy," achieved that ostensibly, but the Nagasaki bombing, "Fat Man," three days later, amid indications of total surrender by the Japanese, proved brutally inhumane. 

It is worth remembering that J Robert Oppenheimer said that the atomic bomb was used "against an essentially defeated enemy".

These bombings were more of a techno-political assertion than a military one by the US, intended to showcase its unmatched destructive capabilities to the world, particularly to the former Soviet Union.

The bombings achieved their immediate goal of ending World War II, but with horrific consequences. Seen in this light, the US' claim to a higher moral ground is a tremendously weak argument.

Building on this historical context, India constructed its nuclear argument and tested its first implosion device in 1974, the "Smiling Buddha." The essential argument for India's nuclear push was its aspiration for power—not merely as a force but also to engage with other nuclear-capable nations on the global stage. Only a small number questioned its ethicality or morality within and outside of it.

Slowly but surely, India gained more than a foothold in the international community with a second nuclear explosion in 1998, with Dr Abdul Kalam, later President of India, called the Missile Man, advocating not the use but the setting up of the nuclear architecture as defence. He was as moral a man as perhaps Oppenheimer has been shown to be. Well versed in the vedas and scriptures of Hinduism. Existentially, both Oppenheimer and Kalam, the former a Christian and the latter a Muslim, felt they had a duty to perform for the nation while worrying about morality.

A little-known fact in this debate of reality versus morality is that Father George Zabelka, a Catholic Chaplain with the United States Air Force, served as a priest for the airman who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and gave them his blessing on the tarmac.

Days later, he counselled an airman who had flown a low-level reconnaissance flight over the city of Nagasaki shortly after the detonation of "Fat Man". The man described how thousands of scorched, twisted bodies writhed on the ground in the final throes of death, while others’ feet wandered aimlessly in shock as their flesh melted off. The crewmen’s description raised a stifled cry from Zabelka’s soul: "My God, what have we done?" Over the next 20 years, he struggled to come to terms with this, and one of the pilots was, until his death, under psychiatric care.

The Christian theology and the Just War concept were not a consideration, especially when the second bomb was dropped.

The logic and principles behind nuclearization have to be debated, especially in light of the Russian threat of nuclear war against the use of any kind of NATO troops going forward.

The world cannot face another World War. And another Hiroshima or Nagasaki cannot happen to any nation under any circumstances in contemporary modern-day politics. Not when there are other real and present threats posed to the global community in the form of climate change. Globally, nuclearization needs to be routed towards not aiding militarization but supporting a low-carbon energy future and other alternatives. India’s stand too needs rethinking and vital exploration of viable alternatives. Foreign policy should, of course, be thoughtfully plotted and relevant to India’s strategic posture.

(The writer is a political science analyst and retired associate professor of political science at Lady Shri Ram College University, Delhi)