Commentary: The tragedy, and lessons, of Hiroshima

Getty Images A couple takes photos of the Atomic Bomb Dome at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The structure, built in 1917, still stood after the Hiroshima atomic bomb blast in 1945 and has become a part of the city’s remembrance.
Getty Images A couple takes photos of the Atomic Bomb Dome at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The structure, built in 1917, still stood after the Hiroshima atomic bomb blast in 1945 and has become a part of the city’s remembrance.

I was eleven on that August morning in 1945 when the bomb exploded over Hiroshima. It carried the explosive energy of 18,000 tons of TNT, an energy equal to the total conventional bomb capacity of 4,000 World War II heavy bombers. People still debate the effect of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs on the conduct of the war. Many of my friends will disagree, but my conclusion is that Hiroshima hastened the end of the war, saved many American and Japanese lives, and was far less horrible than the planned alternative, a long ugly battle following invasion of the Japanese mainland. I do think we should have waited much longer than three days before dropping the second bomb.

Like most tragedies, Hiroshima was nearly inevitable given so many earlier mistakes: World War I, thoughtless treatment of Germany following that war, inattention to the plight of European Jews during the 1930s, U.S. failure to join World War II when it began in September 1939, thoughtless responses to Japanese actions in Asia during the 1930s, and finally the Japanese attack on Dec. 7, 1941. Pearl Harbor set the rest of the tragedy, including Hiroshima, in motion. It's during peacetime that these tragedies can, through intelligence and compassion, be prevented.

I learned about the bomb from a radio program a few months after Hiroshima. I've never forgotten it. Thus, when my friend James R. "Dick" Bennett asked me to speak at the Fayetteville Omni Center's Hiroshima-Nagasaki Remembrance three weeks ago, I was happy to accept. This column is based on those remarks.

Let me tell you about the U.S. Trident submarine force. It forms 50 percent of our strategic nuclear forces. There are 18 Trident subs, of which least four are hidden underwater at any given time. These four are entirely invulnerable to any conceivable attack.

Each of these boats carries 24 intercontinental ballistic missiles. Each missile carries eight independently-targetable nuclear warheads. Each warhead carries an explosive energy equal to 100,000 tons of TNT -- nearly six Hiroshimas. This submarine could attack 192 cities, each with a bomb much larger than the one that destroyed Hiroshima.

In other words, one of these boats could destroy civilization.

Russia has a similar capacity. Great Britain, France, and China have smaller but similar intercontinental nuclear capabilities. India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea also have nuclear weapons, but without intercontinental range. Today, these weapons are humankind's greatest threat.

There is no rational reason for us to live under this threat. We must, and I think we will, get to zero nukes worldwide. This is not pie in the sky. Serious observers on all sides, liberals and conservatives, agree that the goal is a nuclear-free world. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, strategic advisers and secretaries of state to presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H. W. Bush, agree that the goal is zero. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev agreed in 2009 to work toward a nuclear-free world.

As the most important single step on this path, we must obtain a Mideast Nuclear-Free Zone. Today, the only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, with some 100 nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a nuclear power, but it's not in the Middle East and its nuclear weapons cannot today reach the Middle East.

Other Middle East nations, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are quite unhappy about the current nuclear imbalance. Visitors from the West hear constant complaints about Israel's nuclear weapons. The situation is not sustainable: If not Iran, then some other nation will obtain nuclear weapons before long, or will get so close to this goal that Israel will attack them. The ensuing war will be a tragedy for everybody, Israel most of all.

A Mideast Nuclear-Free Zone is feasible. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei called for this in 2012. The UN Non-Proliferation Treaty's 189 nations, including the United States, voted unanimously for a conference to establish such a zone. Saudi Arabia is on record supporting it.

The sole government that doesn't accept the idea is Israel. Israel refuses to discuss the question, refuses to allow UN nuclear weapons inspections on their soil, and is one of only four nations that have not signed the UN's Non-Proliferation Treaty. But even in Israel, there's good news: Polls show that 64 percent of Israelis support a Mideast Nuclear-Free Zone that would include Israel. It's only Israel's benighted leadership that rejects the idea.

By proceeding rationally and humanely, we can have a nuclear-free Middle East and a nuclear-free world.

ART HOBSON IS A PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS. HE IS AUTHOR OF A BOOK AND SEVERAL JOURNAL ARTICLES ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Commentary on 08/31/2014

Upcoming Events