The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 ushered in a new era in warfare and international relations. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, marking itself as the first and only nation to conduct a nuclear attack in history. While estimates of the death toll vary widely, credible figures suggest that at least 70,000 people lost their lives in Hiroshima alone. Just three days later, another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, resulting in an estimated 40,000 additional casualties.
Initially, the public reaction in the United States was overwhelmingly supportive of the bombings. Polls conducted shortly after the attacks indicated that approval ratings for the bombings soared to 85 percent. Many US politicians have maintained that the bombings were crucial in saving American lives and hastening the end of World War II. However, as the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing is observed, public opinion has grown increasingly nuanced.
Recent surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center reveal a significant shift in American perspectives on the bombings. As of last month, responses to the question of whether the use of the atomic bombs was justified are almost evenly divided among the American populace. Nearly one-third of respondents affirm the bombings were justified, another third dispute this justification, while the remaining portion remains undecided.
Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at the Pew Research Center, noted a troubling trend in public sentiment. “The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,” she explained, indicating a shift towards skepticism in views on the bombings.
Criticism of the bombings arose quickly, even from prominent figures and politicians soon after the events took place. Renowned physicist Albert Einstein, along with former President Herbert Hoover, condemned the bombings as war crimes. Hoover articulated his moral outrage, stating, “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” Within the historical context, there remains growing scrutiny over the widely accepted justification that the atomic attacks hastened Japan’s surrender.
Historians have increasingly suggested that other key factors, such as the Soviet Union’s declaration of war against Japan on August 8, contributed significantly to Japan’s decision to surrender. There are also theories positing that the bombings served primarily as a display of military strength, signaling the United States’ resolve to confront the Soviet Union in the looming Cold War.
Public sentiment began to shift significantly through various narratives, including the accounts of Japanese survivors that surfaced after the bombings. John Hersey’s poignant 1946 article chronicling the experiences of six Hiroshima victims elicited widespread emotional responses, detailing the horrific reality of the atomic blast’s aftermath.
By 1990, a Pew survey indicated diminishing approval of the bombings, with only 53 percent of Americans endorsing the use of atomic bombs on Japan. Even then, the legacy of the bombings continued to spark heated debates within the United States. For the 50th anniversary of the bombings in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, faced backlash over an exhibit examining the bombings, focusing on the experiences of Japanese civilians. The exhibit was cancelled following public outcry, with veteran groups arguing that it disrespected American sacrifices during the war.
Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, suggests that the discourse surrounding the atomic bombings serves a broader purpose. This discussion reflects larger questions surrounding American power and foreign policy.
“The debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world,” Baker noted. He argues that the narrative surrounding World War II is regularly employed to justify ongoing American military interventions across the globe.
As the initial generation that experienced World War II continues to age and pass away, the debate on US interventionism and military force globally is evolving. A significant ideological divide emerges along generational lines, especially among younger Americans. Recent polling shows disillusionment with several of the United States’ foreign military engagements, such as its involvement in Israel’s conflicts in Gaza.
In an April 2024 Pew poll, stark generational disparities became evident, as 74 percent of seniors aged 65 and older expressed confidence in an active US role in global affairs, contrasting sharply with only 33 percent of younger individuals aged 18 to 35.
The issue of the atomic bombings also remains a focal point of public discussion against the backdrop of renewed nuclear anxiety. During his re-election campaign in 2024, President Donald Trump brought attention to the escalating tensions in global affairs, warning that the world stood on the brink of potential nuclear conflict.
“We’re at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,” Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, remarked. Panda underscores the interconnectedness of geopolitical tensions among nuclear-capable states, citing incidents like the recent conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as escalating rhetoric surrounding the war in Ukraine.
Concerns about nuclear capabilities have been exacerbated by military actions, including attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities by the US and Israel, framed as necessary interventions to impede Iran’s pursuit of nuclear armament.
As the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing approaches, advocates for nuclear disarmament see the shifting public opinion as an opportunity to revive discussions centered on reducing reliance on nuclear arsenals. Seth Shelden, with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, emphasizes the inherent dangers posed by maintaining nuclear stockpiles.
Countries with nuclear capabilities often argue that their arsenals act as deterrents against aggression. Shelden contests this rationale, asserting that it underestimates the potential for civilization-ending consequences tied to nuclear warfare. He asserts that as long as nuclear states prioritize their arsenals for security, they inadvertently incentivize other nations to follow suit.
Ultimately, he argues that the fundamental question should not be whether nuclear deterrence can consistently function, but rather whether it can be relied upon indefinitely. As public discourse around these critical historical events continues to evolve, the need to reassess the implications of nuclear weapons and their use remains ever urgent.
While the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki echoes poignantly through history, the lessons gleaned from that era resonate with radical possibilities for the future of global peace and security.
image source from：aljazeera
