Hugo Hamilton: Does Hiroshima Give Suicide Bombers an Excuse?
Right now we are trying to enter into the mind of the suicide bomber who steps on the London Underground to take innocent lives. We are naturally horrified that there may be some logic, some fundamentalist argument thrashed out in smoky back rooms which seeks to justify this bloodshed.
Perhaps the question is best answered by our own attitude to the history of bombing. With the passing of the anniversary of Hiroshima, we return to the central issues of what was known as "moral bombing" during the second World War, and specifically the Truman decision to make use of atom bomb.
By now, most people automatically focus on the cost to innocent lives brought about by bombing. But history still seems to make an exception for the Churchill and Truman campaigns in Germany and Japan.
The "finest hour" is, of course, what helped to rescue Europe. Sixty years later, though, that historical view of "moral bombing" as just, if regrettable, may be causing more trouble to us than we had anticipated, simply because it may also be the same thinking that supplies the mandate for suicide bombing.
In Ireland, we had the same moral problem with the IRA bombing campaign which has now dramatically come to an end.
The IRA's declaration of a cessation of violence is an extraordinary achievement, unmatched by any combatants since the second World War. For the past 30 years Irish people have both vocally and silently distanced themselves from atrocities such as Enniskillen.
But there have also been what were known as "the sneaking regarders", the people who harbour a secret regard for the bombers without taking part themselves.
Max Hastings appears to be a "sneaking regarder" of Hiroshima. Writing in the Guardian, he argues that 60 years ago the world was so sick of evil that Truman had no other option but to bring a swift end to the war with a nuclear attack.
There are many arguments for and against such a position, just as many as there are about the bombing of Dresden which the historian Frederick Taylor still justifies as a strategic target.
What is clear is that the moral issues around bombing never affect the victims.
On the anniversary of the Dresden bombing, for example, the survivors held a dignified and welcoming commemoration to which they invited Taylor. The survivors normally reach an understanding with victims everywhere, such as the people of Dresden have done with their counterparts in Coventry.
The arguments around moral bombing only apply to those who carry it out. In this respect, the historians always get it wrong, because they seem to apply the logic of retrospective justification. They see the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima as morally expedient in the face of evil.
However, by justifying them, even with a heavy head, do we not leave it open to others, such as the IRA or al-Qaeda, to argue the same right, to bomb because they have no other alternative? We cannot trade innocent lives....