How Do You Start a Nuclear War?

Note: this episode was written and recorded before the unfolding Russian attacks on Ukraine. There are a number of uncannily related pieces of commentary, but none of them are directly related to what's happening today.

Our Heavy Hitter this week was the first of yet another two-parter, this time focusing on the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We started—as is customary—with plenty of background information to prepare for Part II. I began by addressing that I came into this with a pretty heavy bias against the use of nuclear weapons. I’m generally anti-war across the board, so it seemed natural that I’d frame this episode from that perspective. But it was a disingenuous place to start an episode that ended up being extremely complex, and I ended up rewriting the episode a handful of times. 

What did you end up covering?

I started with an overview of World War I and how it and the precedence for imperialism contributed to the start of World War II. A lot of the way we think about war is colored by the normalization of imperialism and western (specifically white) supremacy. It can be easy to radically and uncritically accept that it’s normal for nations to “own” colonies abroad, that defending economic interests in those colonies is the same as protecting civilians, that there are good guys and bad guys. A lot of powerful people work very hard to condition us with these and similar messages—nationalism is profitable. 

The truth is, there were no “good guys” in World War II or any other war. Imperialism is always negative. Innocent people suffer for the sake of the financial interests of the rich and powerful, and governments continuously justify atrocities in the name of “defense.” When we question what these wars are defending, the mythologized understanding of nationalism starts falling apart. 

More importantly, the people making vital decisions about who lives and dies in wartime are just people. They’re fallible, corruptible, and conditioned by the same messaging I mentioned above. Scientists are not immune to manipulation or propaganda. 

It’s no wonder, then, that they would work tirelessly to create the world’s most destructive weapon. As Olivia said, if one side of a fight has swords and the other has guns, the first side will probably work to develop guns. Imperialists don’t trust each other (for good reason), so why would we not develop the highest order of weapons to protect ourselves?

I have a feeling it gets even more complicated

It does! 

There’s always context that helps to explain behavior on both a micro and macro scale. In the episode, I cover historical causes for Japan’s behavior in World War II, which I’ve found lacking in generic history courses in U.S. public schools. Many of their imperialist behavior was adopted directly from the West to avoid being conquered by the U.S. or U.K. Military action doesn’t come out of a vacuum, and it was irresponsible and, perhaps, convenient for the West to pretend otherwise when it comes to Japan. No one condones atrocity. But for the United States to act as a moral authority when it’s own track record looks the way it does is absurd. We have no right to punish countries for behavior in which we routinely engage. 

Do you support Japan’s behavior in WWII?

Absolutely not. Japan is an imperialist nation that was actively conquering and pillaging land abroad. None of what Japan did was okay. None of what any of the Axis Powers did was okay. None of what the Allies did was okay. To be anti-imperialist means to be on the side of the innocents who suffer at the hands of those who fight for more power. 

That said, it’s unreasonable to critique war without understanding why it happens. No nation was a victim, but they were absolutely products of their histories. It’s difficult to balance the ideas that war is atrocious and that people are generally doing the best they can. 

So was the atomic bomb justified?

That’s the wrong question, and I’ll get further into why in the next episode. 

Nuclear fission was an accidental discovery that led to plenty of good as well as the evil we saw in Japan. But it was always clear, from the moment it was discovered, that it would be weaponized. 

One thing I think we can take away from the arc of this episode is that it’s far too easy for us to dehumanize other countries, especially non-white countries, to justify destroying their lives en masse. The propagandized version of Japanese culture was directly responsible for a lot of that dehumanization—and I can’t even blame the American public too much. It was almost impossible to get an unbiased voice about the war.

But today, I think it’s important to develop a clear-headed understanding of culture and our own implicit biases. Remember that our country has a vested interest in keeping and expanding our own power, and not everything we hear from our leaders is accurate. Remember that the civilians across the sea are living just as rich lives as we do. No one deserves to die for their leaders’ corruption and shortsightedness. I don’t have a solution for you, but I do know that this episode has strengthened my understanding of war, why it happens, and why imperialism is at the center of it. 

For more info on the development and use of the atomic bomb before Part II, read Richard Rhodes’ 2013 seminar, The Atomic Bomb and its Consequences, and his 1987 book The Making of the Atomic Bomb. For a more detailed and nuanced meditation on the topics discussed in this blog post, I encourage you to listen to the full episode—as always, this short summary doesn’t reflect the extent of my feelings about this, but rather a broad understanding. Thank you!