Today was the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The New York Times reported today (an article by Martin Fackler) that the Japanese organization which represents the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is asking the government in Japan to end the use of nuclear energy, because the events at Fukushima show that civilian nuclear power can contaminate the country with deadly radioactivity just as the bombs did in World War II.
But to get a sense of the impact of the first use of atomic bombs when they were used, I read several articles from the archives of the New York Times, which can be searched and read online by digital subscribers. These included the initial story of August 7 by Jeffrey Shallet, "New Age Ushered: Day of Atomic Energy Hailed by President, Revealing Weapon; Hiroshima Is Target; 'Impenetrable' Cloud of Dust Hides City After Single Bomb Strikes." One odd error appears in the story---the claim that the new bomb weighed only 400 pounds---but the story correctly reported the power of the new bomb (equivalent to the ordinance carried by 2,000 Superfortress bombers), and the story revealed the enormous industries that had been constructed in a span of only four years to produce the weapons. The tone of the reporting was one of awe; Shallet described the awareness of those responsible for the weapon of its terrifying power. It is clear from these early articles on the atomic bomb that it was used in hopes of quickly ending the war, and its use was believed to be justified if it could bring an immediate surrender of Japan. However, the Times also reported (August 9) that the reaction in Briton to the news of the bombing of Hiroshima was one of revulsion and of sympathy for Japan. Another piece (Hanson W. Baldwin, August 7) voiced the fear that the bombs would quickly subdue Japan but sow the seeds of a permanent hatred.
At this late date, the morality of the use of the bomb is still under debate. I noticed that Martin Fackler referred to the "American atomic attacks at the end of World War II," and thereby avoided asserting or implying that the atomic bombs ended the war, the primary justification for their use. But it is my strong belief that the use of the bombs was a terrible war crime that cannot be morally justified. However, their use was a natural extrapolation of the tremendously destructive practice of firebombing Japanese cities---cities such as Tokyo suffered catastrophic damage and hundreds of thousands of civilian dead (but without the horrific effects of radiation caused by the atomic bombs). And Americans had an urgent desire to end the war as quickly as possible, in part because the expectation of extremely high Japanese as well as American casualties in the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands (scheduled for the fall of 1945). This was convincingly detailed in a PBS "American Experience" episode about the end of the war in the Pacific, several years ago (a must-see, if it ever airs again). So I have difficulty judging those responsible for the use of the weapons on Japan; I certainly cannot pretend that I would have done any differently given the circumstances if that terrible decision were my responsibility. I can only pray that no one is ever tested in this way again, and that nuclear weapons are never again used.