Reflection On a Motive and Justification of Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – From Cognitive Dissonance into Internal Consistency

When I wrote my short reflection on atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on my Facebook wall,  3 years ago, someone, a Caucasian US-born man, who poses himself as committed to “social justice”,  wrote back, “What about all the atrocities that Japan caused in Asia?”, adding that he did not intend to say that the atomic bombings were a revenge to Japan’s atrocities.  To me, this American man’s words rather seems inconsistent and clearly indicate his difficulty to reflect on “social justice” issue on a use of atomic bomb to kill innocent people without “mixing apples and oranges”.

In response to my Japanese-language blog , “広島原爆投下７０周年目に際し、核兵器問題の本質である煩悩と罪の克服に向けて考える”(Toward Overcoming  the Psychospiritual Defilement Underlining the Nuclear Weapon Problem, in Marking the 70^th Anniversary of the Hiroshima Atomic Bombing), which I posted yesterday,  a Filipino-American, whose family members had to endure living hells caused by Japan in the Philippines, wrote to me, “Let us not dwell in any spiritual or any guilt trip about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.  As the point of this Japanese language blog article I wrote yesterday was to call our attention to overcome our “idolatry” of nuclear weapons, which started with the Manhattan Project, as it is what allowed atomic bombs to be used against innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 70 years ago, and to justify this evil action as if it were an action of moral good to save lives.

These are just a few knee-jerk reactions I often get, whenever I speak and write about the living hell of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As a psychologist and a pastoral minister, these kinds of reactions always make me wonder if I am causing cognitive dissonance and such knee-jerk reactions are behavioral manifestation of their cognitive dissonance to my words on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

According to social psychologist, Leo Festinger, cognitive dissonance may be a good thing as it can lead a person to internal consistency, a post-cognitive-dissonance psychological state to be able to see difference perspective without wasting energy in futile argument as to which view is “right”.

It is my hope that you find the below article to give you meaningful cognitive dissonance to enhance your internal consistency (not to be confused with internal consistency in statistical analysis).

                                                     ********

6^th day of August every year is a somber reminder of how evil in human mind can turn nuclear science to kill countless numbers of fellow humans in a flash and leave those who managed to have survived in immeasurable suffering and pain for years to come, until they die. 

This year marks the 70^th anniversary of the very first day in the entire human history, when humans used then-nascent science of nuclear fission to kill other humans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. What an irony that we have been enjoying the benefits from the consequences of the Manhattan Project, through which the world’s first set of nuclear weapons were developed, through nuclear-power generated electricity, nuclear medicine, and so forth, because nuclear power plants work with the same physics principle as atomic bombs and many radioisotopes used in medicine today are byproducts of nuclear reactions.  If you benefit from nuclear-generated electric power and nuclear medicine, then the quality of life you enjoy cannot be taken for granted as it is connected the man-made living hell of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is always a question: Were atomic bombs absolutely necessary to end the war back in the summer of 1945 by killing so many innocent people in a split second and leaving many more to die as time goes by?

A logic of President Harry Truman, who gave an order to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima on 6^th August and in Nagasaki on 9^th of August, 1945, tells that these atomic bombs were used against Japan to “save lives” that could be killed with the prolonging of the war.  To follow this logic, which seems to parallel utilitarianism, President Truman and those who sided with him, must have thought that the lives killed by atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether civilians and military personnel, were a necessary sacrifice in order to save more people by preventing the furthering of the war, which sure would kill far more people.  To me, this logic reminds me of these words of Caiaphas, who pressed the religious leaders to put Jesus to death to save their nation from a severe punishment by the Roman Empire:

You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.   (John 11:49-50)

Caiaphas was high priest, at the time of Jesus when the nation of Judea was a Roman Empire’s province, who  drove the religious leader’s plot to make Jesus as a security threat to the Roman Empire by presenting him as a dangerous man, who proclaims himself as the king of the Jews  (i.e  Mark 15:1-15), while there is no other monarch but Cesar in the Roman Empire.  Caiaphas and his supporters  set this plot up to have Jesus be executed by the Roman Empire in such a way out of grudge-driven envy (φθόνος/phthonos)  toward him (Matthew 27:18), because of his amazing ministries and challenge toward the religious authority.

Bringing up this biblical topic to related to Truman’s logic is not to compare the lives of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the life of Jesus, but only to juxtapose Truman’s way of thinking to justify the use of atomic bombs to kill ordinary citizens of these Japanese cities to Caiaphas’ logic to justify why the religious leaders had to plot to have Jesus be executed as a “king of the Jews” (INRI - Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), who is a threat to Caesar. According to Caiaphas’ way of thinking, so many people of Judea would be killed by the Roman soldiers unless we present Jesus to the Roman authority for trial and for execution.

“φθόνος/phthonos” Caiaphas’ logic, as they are resolutely believe that Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or any other cities in Japan) was a right decision and even to be praised, for saving more lives from being killed. As Truman indicated in his press release on 6^th August, 1945, his decision to drop atomic bomb in Hiroshima is a consequence of Japanese upright “refusal” of the July 1945 Potsdam Ultimatum. If you take the face value of this explanation of Truman, basically, you may believe that  it is Japan’s fault to have two atomic bomb dropped by the United States for “refusing” the Potsdam Ultimatum.

Some people also argue that dropping atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “just” or “due” revenge to Japan’s attack on the Pearl Harbor, and many other destructions that Japan caused throughout the war in the Asia-Pacific region. If it can be justified as a just revenge, then I cannot help but think of a parallel between a revenge motive to drop nuclear bombs in Japan for all the atrocities brought by Japan during the war and a revenge motive to kill Jesus for being nuisance and threat to the religious leaders of that time of Tiberius Caesar, given the multifold meaning of the Greek word, “φθόνος/phthonos” , used in Matthew 27:18. This word can mean “revenge”, as well as “jealousy”.

In a way, killing innocent Japanese citizens, living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by atomic bombs, is understood as a justifiable ““φθόνος/phthonos”, for all the destructions made by Japan not only to the Pearl Harbor but also in many countries and regions in the Asia-Pacific, just as Caiaphas justified killing Jesus is a right revenge for all the disturbances he created to the religious leaders.  For this, as in Caiaphas’ utilitarianism-like justification to have Jesus killed by the Romans as a way to protect Judea from the Romans,  Truman’ moral justification to drop atomic bombs may make sense as his effort to save more lives at the price of the lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Some people find no moral and logical objection to this, while others do – depending on their respective cognitive framework or the way of thought process.

If you find it difficult to understand that there are multiple ways and views to understand the same historical fact, then, you simply believe Truman’s justification and explanation for his decision to drop atomic bombs for as he stated. However, if you appreciate the meaning of this Buddhist proverb, “一水四見”(isshuishiken), which literally means “there are four ways of viewing the same water”, as the proverb reminds us not only that there are multiple ways of viewing an object but that our views of an object may change as we alter the way we view it.

As the president of the United States of the time, Harry Truman had to justify that his decision to drop atomic bombs was for the best interest of the United States. Whether you see his logic in parallel to the logic of Caiaphas, if you are convicted that  Truman’s is “the” history, then, so be it, as you probably cannot understand the meaning of “一水四見”. However, you are cognitively flexible enough to entertain different perspective on the history leading to Truman’s decision then, you may not find it difficult to know that Japan did not necessarily “refuse” the Potsdam Ultimatum but did reply to the Allied Forces with  a “yes or no” manner but it is believed that the Allied Forces interpreted the Japanese word, “黙殺”(mokusatsu), as a “refusal”, though “黙殺” can mean “to refrain from commenting (on this matter at this time)”, as it literally means “to keep it in silence”.

I am not sure if former US Ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew was on the team to interpret the word of “黙殺”in Japan’s response to the Potsdam Ultimatum, when the United States government received Japan’s response, as Grew’s faculty of Japanese must be good enough not interpret it myopically as “rejection” of the Ultimatum. If that was the case, then, President Truman could have been a bit more patient, knowing that Japan was getting ready to dialogue with the United States to end the war as soon as possible with a mutually agreeable term. As a matter of fact, the United States was already aware of the Japanese Emperor’s explicitly expressed his desire to end the war by negotiation with the United States as he really did not want to see more lives being lost in the war, at the 16^th July, 1945, Imperial Cabinet Conference. Given this fact, I find it difficult to believe the validity on the face value of Truman’s justifying logic to drop atomic bombs.

What about you?

Yes, atomic bombs were dropped,  and a great number of innocent lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were literally evaporated in a flash. If not, incinerated and reduced into untraceable ashes, while many others died, leaving charred corpses. Those who managed to survive have also died with various painful medical symptoms, often with maggots creeping into rotten tissues, as time went by. Though the number continue to dwindle, those who have been alive have been living the both physiological and psychological, as well as spiritual and existential, traumas.

Given this undeniable fact of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as voiced by “被爆者”(hibakusha) – survivors of atomic bombing, you cannot say that atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the exhausting war, which Japan started with bombing the Pearl Harbor US military base in Hawaii, as well as the Clerk US military base in Manila.

In fact, this day, 6^th August, 2015, marks the 70^th anniversary of the beginning of a war that President Truman started in Hiroshima – the war of nuclear science and technology against innocent humans. And, this war, even after 70 years, still continues on not only as surviving “被爆者”continue to live in pain and suffer, dragging the impacts of the traumas, but also as we continue to live under a false sense of security under the umbrella of nuclear weapons today.

I am sure that some people find this reflective writing of mine on justification and motive for dropping atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be disturbing or irritating. If that is the case, my writing must be challenging their comfortable and simplistic view on this issue. And I sure hope that this disturbance and irritation will lead to what Leo Festinger calls, “cognitive dissonance”, which shall help you widen your mind and eventually lead to internal consistency, in which you can hold multiple different views without distressing yourself – to the Buddhist wisdom of “一水四見”.