The world this week is commemorating the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. At the same time, American public opinion about nuclear weapons still reflects a stark ideological divide. The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, immediately killing at least 40,000 people. Three days later, a second bomb fell on Nagasaki, which also killed at least 40,000 people. At a time of increasing global anxieties about nuclear weapons, this excruciating historical moment could not be worse. Unfortunately, recent inflammatory statements from political leaders have raised the specter of a World War III to alarming levels.
In recent years, U.S. politicians have defended the bombings as a necessary evil that ultimately saved American lives and hastened the end of World War II. Yet, the moral underpinnings for doing so remain hotly contested among academics, policymakers, and the public. This generational divide in perceptions about nuclear weapons is particularly interesting, representing a greater youth shift away from attitudes accepting warfare and international involvement of the U.S.
Historical Context and Ongoing Debate
The decision to use atomic bombs on Japan has been a source of controversy for quite some time. Herbert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States, expressed his revulsion shortly after the bombings, stating, “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” His sentiments are echoed by none other than Albert Einstein. As one of the earliest critics of the bombings, Einstein sought to highlight the unprecedented destruction caused by nuclear weapons.
John Hersey’s groundbreaking 1946 narrative in The New Yorker chronicled the experiences of six survivors from Hiroshima and helped humanize the tragedy. This special edition not only filled an entire issue, it was immensely successful in changing public opinion about the bombings. Over time, attitudes have shifted. A Pew Research poll taken in 1990 showed a declining majority of Americans in favor of the bomb’s use.
Fast forward to April 2024, when another Pew poll indicated a stark generational divide regarding U.S. engagement with global conflicts. Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, noted that age was the most pronounced factor influencing opinions about the bombings, surpassing other demographic characteristics.
“The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time.” – Eileen Yam
Just 53 percent of respondents believed it was justified to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Respondents aged 65 and older were over two times more likely to defend the actions as necessary. By comparison, just over a quarter of younger people between the ages of 18 to 29 agreed.
Current Geopolitical Concerns
As tensions rise in various global hotspots, experts assert that nuclear weapons have once again taken center stage in international politics. As a nonproliferation expert, Ankit Panda, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, urged that we need to move quickly to prevent nuclear proliferation.
“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
Ongoing warfare among countries like India and Pakistan are a stark reminder of these underlying geopolitical tensions. U.S. President Donald Trump has rightly warned that the world stands at the precipice of “World War III.” He drives home the point that nuclear weapons will be all too important in future conflicts, increasing worldwide panic.
Seth Shelden painted a grim picture, the real-world impact of strategies for deterring nuclear war. He noted that when nuclear-armed states prioritize these weapons for their security, they inadvertently push other countries to seek similar arsenals.
“As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they’re going to incentivise others to pursue them as well.” – Seth Shelden
This dangerous cycle calls into question the very basis of global security and whether we can truly rely on 21st-century deterrence strategies for generations to come.
Reflections on Legacy and Public Sentiment
The intellectual and moral legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to add momentum to conversations about military ethics and international relations. Critics have pointed out that these bombings left a swath of immediate, though indirect, destruction. They think they dangerously opened the door to future military actions legitimized by national security arguments.
Erik Baker reminded us that the narrative of World War II continues to wield incredible influence. It provides cover even in the current era for American military aggression. He stated, “What’s at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire.”
Baker raised a provocative question regarding justifications for military interventions:
“If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do ‘whatever was necessary’ to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can’t be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the ‘bad guys’ today.” – Erik Baker
This tension between past and present representations and realities makes conversations about nuclear weapons even more contentious. Fiesta Days Parade, Durango, CO In 1995, the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, announced an exhibit for its 50th anniversary. They scrapped it in response to widespread public backlash over what it would mean.
William Detweiler noted that many view these historical narratives as biased:
“The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims.” – William Detweiler
