Greg Mitchell: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Undermine No-First-Use Policy
[Greg Mitchell, editor and writer of the forthcoming Media Fix on TheNation.com, was editor of the newspaper trade publication Editor and Publisher and is co-author, with Robert Jay Lifton, of Hiroshima in America and Who Owns Death?]
More than sixty-four years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, as evidenced by this week's great nuclear summit and new proposals to curtail stockpiles presented by President Obama. But the thousands of weapons in the hands of the current or former superpowers, the United States and Russia, draw less controversy in our country than the notion that Obama is either going too far or not far enough in limiting but not banning our possible "first use" of the bomb in any conflict (or in any response to a perceived threat). Opposition to a no-first-use policy, in fact, has been a cornerstone of US nuclear policy for decades.
Yet despite some positive signs from Obama, I fear that moving very far in the direction of no-first-use is still a long way off in America. Perhaps the strongest reason is this: most Americans, our media and our leaders (including every president), have endorsed our "first-use" of the bomb against Japan. This remains true today, despite new evidence and analysis that have emerged for so many years. I've been writing about this for almost thirty years, with little shift in the polls or change in heart among our policymakers and elected officials....
Over and over top policymakers and commentators say, "We must never use nuclear weapons," yet they endorse the two times the weapons have been used against cities in a first strike. To make any exceptions, even in the past, means exceptions can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two exceptions, with over 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using nuclear weapons has been drawn... in the sand....
Read entire article at The Nation
More than sixty-four years after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb is still very much with us, as evidenced by this week's great nuclear summit and new proposals to curtail stockpiles presented by President Obama. But the thousands of weapons in the hands of the current or former superpowers, the United States and Russia, draw less controversy in our country than the notion that Obama is either going too far or not far enough in limiting but not banning our possible "first use" of the bomb in any conflict (or in any response to a perceived threat). Opposition to a no-first-use policy, in fact, has been a cornerstone of US nuclear policy for decades.
Yet despite some positive signs from Obama, I fear that moving very far in the direction of no-first-use is still a long way off in America. Perhaps the strongest reason is this: most Americans, our media and our leaders (including every president), have endorsed our "first-use" of the bomb against Japan. This remains true today, despite new evidence and analysis that have emerged for so many years. I've been writing about this for almost thirty years, with little shift in the polls or change in heart among our policymakers and elected officials....
Over and over top policymakers and commentators say, "We must never use nuclear weapons," yet they endorse the two times the weapons have been used against cities in a first strike. To make any exceptions, even in the past, means exceptions can be made in the future. Indeed, we have already made two exceptions, with over 200,000 civilians killed. The line against using nuclear weapons has been drawn... in the sand....