Les armes nucléaires ont-elles provoqué la capitulation du Japon ?

Ward Wilson : Repenser les armes nucléaires

Enregistré le 16 janvier 2013

Lors d'un événement en 2013 à Carnegie Council, Ward Wilsonaujourd'hui directeur exécutif de Realist Revolt, affirme que c'est la déclaration de guerre soviétique, et non le bombardement nucléaire d'Hiroshima, qui a provoqué la capitulation du Japon à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Un membre du public émet alors l'hypothèse que les Soviétiques ont déclaré la guerre à cause d'Hiroshima.

Cliquez ici pour accéder à la transcription complète et à l'audio de cette conférence.

Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II—except they didn’t. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon. Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that’s the way it’s usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result—I’m not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack—Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive.

The Soviet Union’s declaration of war, on the other hand, fundamentally altered the strategic situation. Adding another great power to the war created insoluble military problems for Japan’s leaders. It might be possible to fight against one great power attacking from one direction, but anyone could see that Japan couldn’t defend against two great powers attacking from two different directions at once.

The Soviet declaration of war was decisive; Hiroshima was not.

After Hiroshima, soldiers were still dug in in the beaches. They were still ready to fight. They wanted to fight. There was one fewer city behind them, but they had been losing cities all summer long, at the rate of one every other day, on average. Hiroshima was not a decisive military event. The Soviet entry into the war was.

And they said this. Japan’s leaders identified the Soviet Union as the strategically decisive factor. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June to discuss the war in general, policy, they said Soviet entry would determine the fate of the empire. Kawabe Toroshiro said, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war."

Japan’s leaders said Hiroshima forced them to surrender because it made a terrific explanation for losing the war. But the facts show that Hiroshima did not force Japan to surrender.

If nuclear weapons are a religion, Hiroshima is the first miracle. What do we make of a religion when its miracles turn out to be false? Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering in World War II—except they didn’t.

Transcript of the entire lecture

This talk was based on a discussion of Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons.

Ressources sur l'éthique nucléaire et la militarisation

28 JUILLET 2022 - Podcast

The Doorstep: Quelle est la véritable menace d'une guerre nucléaire ? avec Gary Samore

Gary Samore, professeur à l'université de Brandeis, rejoint Nick Gvosdev et Tatiana Serafin pour discuter de la façon dont la dissuasion nucléaire encourage la retenue et la prudence, et de l'espoir ...

9 SEP, 2021 - Podcast

Vingt ans après le 11 septembre : Les guerres grises, les valeurs américaines et l'avenir de la sécurité nationale

Au cours des 20 années qui ont suivi les attentats du 11 septembre, les décisions en matière de sécurité nationale ont mis à l'épreuve les valeurs de la démocratie américaine. Cette table ronde, animée par Joel Rosenthal, président de Carnegie Council , ...

Matériaux à l'échelle nanométrique et régimes actuels de contrôle des armements

Carnegie Council continue de publier des ressources axées sur l'intersection entre les technologies émergentes et les conflits internationaux.

Comment les décideurs politiques peuvent-ils faire des choix responsables quant à l'utilisation des nanomatériaux en temps de guerre ?

Écouter le podcast