The Assumptions made by Enola Gay

On the morning of the 6th of August 1945, the first ever nuclear bomb was used in war. Tens of thousands of people died instantly and the fires that came as a result of the bombs did not go out for three days; killing more and more people as each horrifying day went on. Three days later, a larger device was released over Nagasaki.

This week, people are celebrating the end of the Second World War and the end of the atrocities that it encompassed. By association, celebrating the dropping of these bombs and the obliteration of two cities. 129,000 - 246,000 people were sent to an early grave.

When I was younger (I'm talking until I was 17) I had no tolerance for other people's opinions but now, as far as politics students go - I would say that I'm pretty ok with people having viewpoints that are different to mine. I would argue that the key to peace is knowing and accepting that your opinions and beliefs are different to others. I understand that views on warfare are not easy things for people to agree on and my opinion will grate on the principles of others. However the purpose of this post is not to cause a fight, it is to give my personal understanding - or should I say - lack of understanding of the existence of nuclear weapons.

I feel that this is an appropriate time to make the announcement that I have incredibly good friends that are in the army and my Uncle was a solider. I respect wholly what soldiers have done for our country and how our lives in the UK are better because of what they have done. I believe that if becoming a soldier and fighting for this country is what they view as right, then they should be free to do so. Just because I don't support war, it doesn't mean that I don't understand that many people around the world believe that it is necessary for the betterment or defence of their country. I am not disrespecting soldiers or individuals - I want to make that very clear.

This blog could be the length of 50 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix copies explaining why some people believe that America were in the right for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all being completely valid beliefs. Perhaps your view is that the bombings were an imperative last resort by the Americans as a desperate response to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the torture of American prisoners and most of all, to put an end the atrocities that at the time, the world could see no end to.

War makes no sense to me. I cannot give you a sufficient explanation as to why the Americans should not have used nuclear weapons as a response to what Japan had done, because I do not understand why political/economic/moral disagreements between the countries escalated to war in the first place. I cannot give you an explanation as to why war of any sense is needed to resolve issues, again, because I do not understand it. All I can tell you is that I disagree with it.

Got to be one of my favourite quotes. Some people may argue that Japan surrendered after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so it created peace. Surprise, surprise! I don't agree. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay, world politics changed forever. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped, a premise was set, a moral level of what is acceptable was unveiled. A moral level which told the inhabitants of the Earth that it was ok to destroy others and the planet they live on. The above quote at first seems to be saying that bombing for peace is pointless, just as fucking for virginity is. But as an annoying English student, I see it to mean something different.

*Please excuse this next metaphor*
When a person loses their virginity, whether it's on their wedding night or down an alley - there is always some sort of build up, perhaps between yourself and your partner, or perhaps you haven't told anyone, but you have been wondering what it will be like. There is sense of almost not wanting to do it, not wanting to spoil what can seem so unblemished. But then it is done. It is not something that can be undone, you may not want it to be undone; whatever your view on the matter is - you cannot take back what has happened. That then sets the standard for what is held in the future. Some people find that the build up for the second time they have sex is not quite so big - and soon it may not become a big deal whatsoever. Some people find that the same goes for new partners - after a while it can start to lose its significance.

So rather than simply saying that bombing is pointless; is what these girls meant that when one bomb is dropped, it will simply become routine for countries to eradicate enemies in this manner? Leading ultimately, to the end of the world. This was shown when nuclear weapons were almost used once more only 6 years after Nagasaki when China joined the Korean war.

After the end of the Second World War, countries invested more and more money into defence because if  their enemies ever decided to drop a bomb on them - surely they would need weapons to attack back. But if they had weapons in the first place, then perhaps the enemy wouldn't attack them in the fear that they would react. This is what is known as the security dilemma. All these countries are armed with nuclear weapons and each country invests more and more money into them (see the Conservative's shitty plans for Trident) to seem the most powerful in order to prevent other countries from attacking.

And there you have it - that is Realist theory on defence in international relations - something arguably prominent in international politics today.

Realism was the leading school of thought during the Cold War which is arguably the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. The event I'm referring to is the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wont go into it right now, but feel free to google it in your own time.

No, there has been no nuclear war in the last 70 years, but it came agonisingly close in 1962 between the USA and Russia and also the UK joined America in the invasion of Iraq over the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (which have NEVER been found). This proves to me that even the idea of WMD is too dangerous to support to any degree. It also shows how close the world can come to nuclear confrontation if the time calls for it - and nuclear confrontation is not something that is taken lightly or should be seen as an option.

In the 2015 General Election the Green Party, contrary to Realist theory, campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament. This means that they would renounce Britain's nuclear weapons without seeking the equivalent from actual or potential rivals. Dangerous, some might think. Too dangerous to consider.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a campaign to non-violently rid the world of nuclear weapons and other WMD in order to create a safe world for the future. It is a campaign that I support as I don't support war and I don't support the use of or existence of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can only end in two ways, waste or death. The Conservative's plans to upgrade Trident has been estimated to cost £20bn. Why are we investing that money into something that if is used, will only begin the end of the world? Hospitals, schools, welfare, international aid, the environment. Think about where this dead money could have been spent. That's what it is when the WMD are sat underwater with virtually no purpose - dead money. If I'm proved wrong and the bombs are used, then it's likely that no one will be around to say "I told you so."






SOURCES
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hiroshima-nagasaki-70th-anniversary-facts-aftermath-damage-first-nuclear-bombs-used-war-1514194
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/17/trident-future-election-agenda-costs-spiral-nuclear-submarines