Atomic Shadows and International Security

Historical events can reveal information about the present when they are examined in their context. One such example is the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people who burned that day, and the shadows they left behind.

The political reasons for these attacks uncover important implications regarding states, war and humanity when analysed through the lens of international security. For this purpose, two relevant approaches to security have been selected.

Since the bombing came at the end of a conflict between states where both vied for power and domination, as well as resulted in untold human suffering and death, the security approaches of Realism and Human Security (HS) are the most applicable as they deal directly with these issues. The contrast of these theories can demonstrate the dynamics of this destructive historical event in greater clarity, showing its relevance to society and security studies today.

Context

The Asia-Pacific War (1931–1945) plunged the area into chaos, and ultimately resulted in tens of millions of human deaths. The war saw the rapid territorial expansion of Imperial Japan, with the goal of economic independence and self-sufficiency. This brought them into conflict with China, the European powers and the USA, who sought to defend their own ill-gotten territory in Asia and curb Japanese aggression, eventually leading to total war after the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

This was a costly war in lives for both sides, drenching the beaches of the Pacific in human blood and mingling it with the waves.

Partially, this was a result of the fanatic culture of Imperial Japan. The reasons why individual soldiers fought varied, but they were characterised by a willingness to die in devastatingly great numbers in hopeless battles rather than face the shame of surrender, which was a socially forbidden topic. This mentality extended to the highest reaches of the command structure, evidenced by the Japanese refusal to capitulate even after their defeat become inevitable. Because of this, the Japanese were incredibly effective at inflicting high casualty rates, though it cost the lives of even more of their own soldiers.

The cost in blood did not halt the advance of the Allies, though it did concern them deeply. By 1945 they were considering plans to invade the Japanese home islands with high projected casualty rates, since the civilians would likely have fought to the death rather than surrender. In the end, a land invasion was not pursued.

This is because from early 1942, The USA had been working on a new weapon, codenamed The Manhattan Project. This was the first atomic bomb, and when it proved successful on July 16, 1945, its potential effectiveness against the Japanese was clear.

The atomic bomb was first used as a weapon on the 6th of August, dropping on the Japanese city of Hiroshima at 8:45am. It devastated the city, causing an estimated 80,000 deaths, as well as another 70,000 wounded, many from radiation burns that resulted in death over the following days.

The heat and light of the blast were so extreme that it bleached the very buildings and stone. People blocked this light where they stood and sat, leaving undyed sections behind them like shadows: Small patches of homes and workplaces left untouched by the war, in the shape of their own bodies.

Still, the Japanese did not capitulate.

Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:02am, killing and wounding roughly half the numbers of Hiroshima. Faced with such destruction and possible future attacks, the Japanese resolve finally broke, and they offered unconditional surrender on August 14.

When examined through the lenses of Realism and Human Security (HS) the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki take on a very different light. While the definition of security is hotly contested and there are multiple perspectives within each of these approaches, broad differences between them and how they frame issues of security become clear when they analyse the same event.

Realism

Realism is possibly the most enduring and influential approach to security. It proposes a simplistic view of security, making the state the sole referent object of security, which exists in an anarchic World Order of other states where war is inevitable. As a result, the mechanism through which security can be achieved is by maximising power, usually through military dominance to defend against foreign incursions. Many critics have refuted this as too narrow, pointing to instances where war has proved not to be inevitable, and the myriad sources of insecurity, such as natural disasters and economic concerns, which military power cannot effectively address.

For Realism, the use of nuclear weapons was a prudent and effective decision for the Allies because it allowed them to achieve victory and dominance over the state of Imperial Japan, ensuring the security of their own states. However, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the following surrender were devastating for the security of Japan, removing their autonomy, liberty, and ability to defend themselves; being fully subordinate to occupying foreign powers.

This highlights an important implication of Realism, namely that security though military might always comes at the expense of insecurity for another state. As the US and the other Allied states became more powerful and secure, Japan lost its security and self-determination completely.

Human Security

In contrast, HS moves away from the state-centred system of Realism, making humans the referent object of security, seeking to address as many threats to human safety as possible. This includes natural disasters, disease, and poverty, striving to assure both freedom from want and freedom from fear. It does this through mechanisms like policy reform and societal development, rather than military power. Importantly, HS also asserts that states should be manipulated to benefit humanity, rather than humans serving the needs of the state. However, critics have pointed out the difficulty of achieving such broad goals in practice, as well as the problems in clearly defining the borders of HS. Consequently, the use of nuclear weapons in Japan is complex from the perspective of HS.

On one hand, it was a humanitarian disaster, causing a monumental number of deaths and human suffering. Nearly 300 doctors lived in Hiroshima before the atom bomb was dropped; only around two dozen survived. Because of this, the suffering was unimaginable for the tens of thousands of people who could receive little to no medical attention after the blast.

On the other hand, the bombings potentially saved lives in the long run because they prompted Japanese surrender, preventing a land invasion and further nuclear detonations. If these had happened, many more individuals from similar demographics would have been killed and displaced, as the civilians had been preparing mentally and militarily for such an event, and likely would not have surrendered, in a way contributing to their own insecurity. Therefore, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be viewed as protecting Human Security in the long run, though the safety of hundreds of thousands of humans was sacrificed to achieve it, which is in direct contradiction to the core purpose of Human Security.

Conclusion

When seen through these different security approaches, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki look very different, both in their costs and benefits. For Realism, this event was a prudent course of action that paid off well for the Allied states, while devastating the state of Japan. From the perspective of HS, it was at best a necessary evil and at worst a catastrophe because it failed to keep humans secure. For this reason, a Realist approach to security is not compatible with Human Security, because their values do not align in practice. A Realist analysis of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows that when states act in their own interest and maximise their power, it is on the back of individual human lives lost or the wellbeing of other states. Though these states only function on the back of humanity, their welfare often diverges, and they will let Human Security fall by the wayside for their own benefit.

Thus, when powerful states play their Realist game of high politics, global manoeuvring, and war, insignificant humans get burned up in the endless cycle of military power shifts. When the dust settles, the only parts of human life untouched by state violence are in the shape of shadows left behind by bodies, just as it was at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.