Hiroshima, Ninevah, & Los Alamos
Print Friendly Version| On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. | Tuesday, August 5, 2008 |
| Vol. 2, No. 48 |
This week, to commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Aug.6, 1945, hundreds of us converged on Los Alamos, New Mexico, birthplace of the bomb, and did what some may think strange. Taking a page from the book of Jonah, we sat in sackcloth and ashes and repented of the mortal sin of war and nuclear weapons. Along Trinity Drive we sat in silence, our hearts begging the God of peace for the gift of nuclear disarmament.
You might think it strange that people resort to sackcloth and ashes. But in a town where thousands of people build and perfect weapons of mass destruction, in a world of war, executions, poverty, starvation, nuclear weapons, and global warming, our gesture was an eminently sane thing to do.
We've been doing it for several years now. This year, Sr. Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, joined us and urged us on. She called on New Mexico to abolish the death penalty, and also to abolish nuclear weapons, which imprison us all on a kind of global nuclear death row. We embraced her exhortation and together we prayed, sang, shared and lifted up a fresh vision of peace.
To proclaim a fresh vision requires retiring the old, especially as the old vision espouses dangerous myths and lies. For instance, we know now from historians such as Gar Alperovitz, that winning World War II did not require our dropping the atomic bomb, that Japan was moving toward surrender already. The United States proceeded merely to demonstrate to the Soviets our militarily superiority. The war was a secondary issue. In bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States maneuvered for a head start in the post-war arms race.
The myths and lies no longer hold. Anyone with a shred of sanity sees that building and maintaining weapons of mass destruction, and threatening to use them, is sinful, immoral and evil -- plain and simple. Such is the judgment of every major religious group.
It is illogical, inconsistent and hypocritical for us to bristle with indignation as other nations -- such as Iraq and Iran -- show interest in developing nuclear weapons while we continue to build and maintain them by the thousands.
Such were the notions expressed by our signs and banners, our sackcloth and ashes, our humble prayer and plea. It's immoral to maintain a wasteful, hazardous, expensive nuclear arsenal, instruments of genocide.
The billions upon billions of dollars should be used instead for food for the hungry, homes for the homeless, schools, jobs and universal healthcare. With the extra billions, we could meet our pledge to fight global poverty and disease, and unleash the prodigious mental power at Los Alamos to tackle the thorny problems of restoring the planet. The problems of renewable energy and radioactive landfills come to mind.
The age of nuclear weapons is coming to an end -- as is the age of oil. We can no longer afford obsolete weapons and antiquated thinking, much less risk another Hiroshima.
Our country and our world are rapidly changing, whether we like it or not, so we need to pursue a new vision of nonviolence, a new world without war, poverty, executions, hunger, corporate greed, global warming or nuclear weapons.
That's what we prayed for at Los Alamos in our sackcloth and ashes. We mournfully remembered Hiroshima, and when one does that it, necessarily involves envisioning a day when nuclear weapons no longer exist.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
John Dear's autobiography A Persistent Peace (440 pages, with a foreword by Martin Sheen) was released this week by Loyola Press and is available from www.amazon.com. For further information, see: www.persistentpeace.com and www.johndear.org
terri: you wrote: "In
terri:
you wrote: "In dropping the bomb on a purely civilian poplulation we joined the likes of the Nazis"
It is really easy to sit in front of the computer, in an air conditioned home, sipping hot coffee, with the radio playing music to villify others. There are some important points that that really should consider before one passes judgement:
1. if you were one of the 80,000+ women in nanking china who were raped to death by japanese soldiers, you might feel differently
2. if you were one of the chinese civilians in the suhchang provence (hope I spelled that right) who was convulsing on the ground as the bio weapons the japanese were testing on the population slowly destroyed your nervous system, you might feel differently
3. if you were one tens of thousands of chinese civilians used for bayonet practice to train new japanese recruits, you might feel differently
4. if you were an american soldier/sailor who was being slowly starved to death while being forced to perform slave labor, you might feel differently
5. there was no such thing as innocent civilians in the japanese culture of that time. All "civilians" were reserve soldiers, even the school children. Every one who died was a japanese soldier.
6. the simple fact of the matter is that if the bombs had not been dropped, japanese casualties would have been in the tens of millions before the war ended.
7. if you are going to villify, then you must also villify the catholic church. In newreel footage, a catholic priest was blessing the crew, the plane AND the bomb.
If you really want to have your eyes opened, and see why it was necessary to drop both bombs, read "The Rape of Nanking". Study the pictures that the japanese soldiers made of their "handiwork". Western civilization did not end, only our innocence ended.
Sorry, Col55, but Terri was
Sorry, Col55, but Terri was right. We committ many evils because we demonize a whole population for the atrocities of a few.
And yes the Catholic Church hierarchy has a history of supporting military might and ruthless dictators. Again I will not condemn the whole church for the actions of a few.
It was NOT necessary to drop both bombs-and many of the dead were Catholic, if that makes a difference, though it shouldn't.
It is NEVER necessary to torture either or we become like those we call evil.
COL55~ Personally, I didn't
COL55~ Personally, I didn't read terri's post as villification. S/he was, to me, stating an agreement with Ghandi as quoted that we became like those you describe.
Whereas I agree
Whereas I agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Dear's mission to help promote peace through nuclear disarmament, I'm afraid that in the third paragraph of his recent offering he oversimplifies the use of the first (and second) nuclear bombs on Japan. From the many history books and articles I've read, it is true that Japan was on the way to defeat. However, from their military actions and tactics on even the strategically insignificant outlying islands, such as Iwo Jima, and the frighteningly effective kamikaze attacks on ships, they were not going to go down easily. Certainly, bombing with conventional weapons, even including horrific firebomb attacks, had not brought them to the peace table. This was also the case in Europe, where Allied commanders thought that massive bombing raids would bring the Nazis to their knees. It was only very late in the war in Europe that bombing had any appreciable effect. Even after Hiroshima was annihilated, the Japanese military-ruled government advised their Emperor/leader/god (bad combination)that America had only one nuclear bomb, resulting in a continuation of the war and the total destruction of a second Japanese city. The Allies were preparing for a land invasion of Japan in late summer or early fall. Experts of the day estimated the number of Allied casualties from such an invasion would exceed one million, with perhaps two or three times that number of Japanese killed and wounded, many times the number killed and sickened because of the use of the nuclear bombs. Of course, they had no way of knowing how many would die, since they had no idea how long the war would last after an invasion. In addition, information was spotty and just plain wrong on the longterm effects of nuclear radiation. Military documents from the time indicated that nuclear bombs, from artillery, should be lobbed at the enemy a few miles in front of attacking troops, then the troops would immediately advance to control the area! My father-in-law, who had just helped win victory in Europe in the infantry, was preparing to board a train to take him to a ship that was bound for the Pacific, that is, for the invasion of Japan. He related to me that neither he nor his comrades in arms objected to the war ending when it did, or how, regardless of the weapon or weapons used.
Yes, there were strategic and political implications regarding the Soviets in using the bombs, as there was in dividing Europe with the Communists, resulting in the many miserable years of the Cold War. However, President Truman perhaps summarized it best when he said that since we had "the bomb", and its use could help end the war earlier, he had little choice but to use it. So, the decision to use nuclear weapons was the result of having developed it in the first place, an enormously expensive undertaking that could have been stopped anytime during several years. Then again, there was the fear that the Nazis (and to a lesser extent the Japanese) were developing a nuclear potential, something that Einstein and other notables championed, which got the Manhattan project going in the first place. After the war it was found that the Nazis were in fact developing a nuclear weapon, but fortunately, they had taken a wrong technological path, otherwise. . .
Without a doubt, it is good and noble to strive as hard as possible for peace (and nuclear disarmament), but the Los Alamos area is little more than the outward sign of a much deeper malignancy, namely, the constant preparation and deployment of nuclear weapons coupled with the twisted acceptance of their limited and even all-out use. To that end, perhaps demonstrations should be conducted at the locales where such thinking is centered.
Regarding justification of the use of the first atomic bombs, the words of Bob Dylan should be recalled -- nobody's right when everybody's wrong.
Lord Bless and guide all
Lord Bless and guide all those who have died in all wars to the peace they deserve. Amen
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
I walked downtown with my
I walked downtown with my wife and son today. I asked them to avoid walking on the 'shadows' chalked on the sidewalk. They didn't know what they represented. I told them. They did not believe me until they read it in the chalk. I don't think it made much of an impression. Sad.
Why didn't you commemorate
Why didn't you commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9th as well?
Just as many people were killed in Tokyo on March 9th from fire bombing as were killed in Hiroshima on Aug 6th from Atomic bombing.
For the record, I live in
For the record, I live in Los Alamos, NM. I live on Trinity Street and I counted the [nummber of protesters] last Saturday. There were not "hundreds." There were fifty-eight.
I was in Los Alamos that
I was in Los Alamos that day, Saturday, August second, 2008, and counted over 250 people gathered. {Perhaps you only counted those along one road?)
peace
love thy enemies
In a short artilce and photo
In a short artilce and photo dated Aug. 3, the Santa Fe Newmexican reported:
With ashes on their faces or hands, about 300 people joined the sixth annual “Sackcloth and Ashes” peace vigil Sunday in Los Alamos in commemoration of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski. After the peace vigil ended, Sister Helen Prejean spoke at a rally near Ashley Pond.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/News-in-brief--8-3-08
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management
It's heartbreaking that
It's heartbreaking that anyone has to die in a war, wars are tragic and evil. But to pick a specific weapon as "the worst" is extremely peculiar. Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki -- all terribly sad places, regardless of the tool used to accomplish the war effort. Choosing to demonize a specific tool does little to stop the political posturing that gets us into trouble in the first place. Better to work to make a less hostile world, than to bring hostility and misunderstanding to a city devoted to science.
Terri Shofner There was a
Terri Shofner
There was a difference with Hiroshima, it was not a military target. Until then America had only bombed sites that had military significance, like Tokyo. The people of Hiroshima were tax paying, peace loving citizens similar to those of any American city, whereas Pearl Harbor was a military target.
In dropping the bomb on a purely civilian poplulation we joined the likes of the Nazis. Gandhi warned that for the Allies to win against the Nazis we would have to become like them. I believe he was spot on. Western "Civilazation" ended with that war. But I'm an optimist and I believe we can be redeemed if we can wake up our hearts and learn to see the sacred in one another again.
For deeper insight into that war I'd highly recommend reading "Human Smoke" by Nicholson Baker. It's filled with eye opening quotes from those intimately involved.