Hypervisibility in

Hiroshima:
How the Ethics of Contemporary Warfare
Created a Human Disaster

Stewart Wenner
WRT 105
“Hypervisibility” Essay
11/17/08
 Stewart Wenner - 1

Humans are used to disasters; they have readily become a part of our lives,

especially as we deform the earth more and more, provoking all sorts of rather

unnatural “natural” disasters. While many people may think of natural disasters

when the topic of human tragedies arises, one must take the time to realize that

some of the most horrific disasters actually are completely man-made: those which

occur during wartime. As war has developed and become more and more

sophisticated, the amount of destruction has risen exponentially; new weapons and

methods have been created that make it easier than ever to take the lives of

humans. One incredible catastrophe that is sometimes overlooked, or pushed off to

the side as “justified”, is the attack on Japan at the end of World War II which

essentially decimated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the United States

government maintains the claim today that the intention was to avoid civilian

casualties during these attacks, numerous accounts from scientists and experts

support nearly the opposite idea. This massive oversight, as well as the general

attitude of US military attacks, suggest that there was little the nation would avoid

doing if it meant victory in the end. The massive and unique destruction caused by

the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki raises serious questions about the

ethics of contemporary warfare; the fact that there is still debate about the military

significance of the Japanese cities as targets, and that hundreds of thousands of

civilians were killed or irreparably damaged suggests that, at least in the United

States, insufficient military intelligence or morally deficient decisions have led to

significant disasters.

To begin analyzing what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a visual

representation of the damage and injury caused is quite powerful and able to

summarize – without words – exactly what happened and what the results were. The
 Stewart Wenner - 2

image that stands out as presenting this idea best is one of two survivors of the

blast in Hiroshima. They are shown sitting in some sort of building, possibly a relief

shelter, huddled together. What sticks out

the most to the viewer is the combination

of their oddly blank expressions and the

flash burns that cover large areas of their

bodies. Neither the man nor woman is

looking directly at the camera, and both

appear to be simply staring off into the

distance. They seem to be in some sort of

shock, which is understandable based on

the incredibly traumatic experience they

(“Survivors of Hiroshima”)
had been through. Though their

expressions are hard to read, their hands are gripping tightly onto some sort of

blanket, signaling more visually that they may be stressed or anxious about what

happened. Their hands appear clamped onto the blanket as if it is the only thing left

protecting them, one last tangible element of safety in their now-hazardous

environment. Another very important aspect of the photograph is the unique burns

that appear on the pair’s faces, arms, and hands. While it is unclear as to exactly

what caused it, based on the circumstances, they appear to be “flash burns” due to

the massive heat given off by the atomic blast. The two people are still living and

breathing, but they have been significantly changed. It is important to note that the

two are clearly non-military, based on their apparent older age and the fact that

their clothing is casual and civilian-like. Being drawn to the three focal points of the

image (the hands and each of their faces) gives the viewer a much more personal
view of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and reveals that much more

damage was done than simply to military targets. Many other images similar to this

one exist, showing the injuries – both physical and emotional – sported by the

citizens of the Japanese cities after the dropping of the bombs. One very noticeable

and very important common thread between a good number of these photos is the

presence of people from the two extremes of age: both infants and young children

as well as older people such as in the picture shown. Seeing the number of

defenseless civilians damaged by the bombs sends a much different message about

the meaning and the goal of the attacks than do images of collapsed buildings or

dead soldiers. Stewart Wenner - 3

Based on the actions of the United States military in World War II, their goal

was clearly to simply “win” the conflict, with very little regard to civilian casualties.

When a military power is arriving at a decision as to what enemy target they will

attack in a certain instance, one would think that they would take a variety of

factors into consideration. For example, they would need information on any

military structures, defenses, or troops in the area, each which may make the target

worth attacking. The US military certainly went through this process, but looked at

different factors than one might expect. According to a report made by a committee

(including the Commanding General and members of the Air Force) whose sole task

was selecting targets for the atomic bomb, two of the most important criteria for

the mission were the “selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on

the Japanese people” and the “moral effect upon the enemy” (“Bombings of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki”). While they did specify the concept of a “military effect”,

the term is quite vague; incapacitating a number of civilian workers could

potentially be seen as a military effect if they were contributing to the war effort
(though they may not even know it). The fact that the population density or

presence of civilians was not even mentioned is rather striking, and leads one to

believe that a particularly devastating moral effect could be accomplished by killing

a large number of civilians. The number and density of civilians in the area –

especially when using a weapon such as an atomic bomb, which has no ability to

pick and choose who it destroys – should have been considered, but was apparently

overlooked. This is very relevant in the Japanese cities, as they were both packed
Stewart Wenner - 4
full of civilians.

By no means were the cities purely military targets, as was claimed or

suggested by the United States military. President Truman himself was either lied

to, misinformed somehow, or oblivious to the final target selection, because he

wrote in his diary before the bombs were dropped that he wanted “to use [the

bomb] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not

women and children”, and that “the target will be a purely military one” (Truman).

Even if this is what Truman really wanted to have happen, women and children did

end up targeted, and the target was by no means purely military. In the official

written order to use the bomb against Japanese cities that was eventually approved

by Truman, there was no mention of making sure the final targets were mainly

military. In fact, one clause stated that “additional bombs will be delivered…as soon

as made ready by the project staff” (Groves). Clearly, this rather open-ended order

was designed to give the US military the option to do whatever it thought necessary

with the bomb, even if it meant great civilian casualties. In reality, “it is an

indisputable fact that most of the Japanese casualties of the two atomic attacks of

August, 1945, were civilians living in the two cities that were destroyed by the

atomic bombs” (Mahoney). Between 1945 and 1947, over 250,000 Japanese citizens
died as a result of the bomb, not to mention the long-lasting radiological and

genetic damage done to many of the survivors. These people did not even have a

chance to get out of the cities or to move themselves out of harm’s way, which

supports the idea that the intention was to eliminate the civilians as well. The only

warning the Japanese received was a very vague and general threat; Truman wrote

in his diary “we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and

save lives” (Truman). This certainly does not qualify as sufficient warning. As one

expert said, “All human beings within a two-mile radius of the [blast’s] epicenter

were incinerated in an instant…Another one hundred thousand or more bomb

victims died in the following months and years” (Mahoney). This description helps to

provide an idea of exactly what kind of damage the atomic bomb was capable of, as

well as the fact that the residents of the Japanese citizens did not have a chance of

survival or and opportunity to defend themselves. In other military attacks as well,

the United States aimed to simply destroy. Regarding so-called “saturation

bombing”, an American military officer stated that “ ‘the 20th Air Force is

systematically bombing out [Japanese cities] with the prime purpose of not leaving

one stone lying upon another.’ “ (Mahoney). As this shows, the Americans were not

singling out military targets or anything of significance while planning their attacks;

rather, they just destroyed everything in their path. Not only was general

destruction the main goal, but it was one which gave some US military officers

obvious satisfaction; according to one investigator, there was one “ ‘Major General

Curtis LeMay, who gloated that 100,000 people in Tokyo had 'scorched and boiled

and baked to death in one night' of conventional American saturation bombing

raids’ “ (Mahoney). This rather shocking quote displays the attitude of some

American officers: the Japanese were simply the enemy, no matter what.
 Stewart Wenner - 5

On the other side, the Japanese were comparatively merciful and arguably

more respectful in terms of upholding some sort of ethical standards during

wartime. Some of this was certainly due to the differences in military size as well as

the location of the theaters of war, but one figure stands out nonetheless: the very

minimal civilian casualties in the United States. It may be claimed that the Japanese

didn’t have a chance to harm American civilians, and that if they had the chance,

they would have. But looking at other examples of Japanese attacks on the United

States supports the idea that they weren’t buying into the concept of total war.

Pearl Harbor is a clear and perhaps the best example of Japanese intentions. The

attack on Pearl Harbor “was a precisely executed surgical strike on American

military targets” (Mahoney). There is no question that the American base at Pearl

Harbor was solely a military target, not anything like the cities of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki. Very few American civilians (less than one hundred) were killed during

the attack, and the strike was limited to one specific, contained area. This is

completely opposite from the atomic bombs, which eradicated entire squire miles

without regard to their targets. While Truman used the bomb to accomplish a

political objective, “the Japanese aerial assault on Pearl Harbor was, in actual fact,

the specific military objective against the United States of the Japanese

government” (Mahoney). Essentially, the United States used great destruction to

make a point and speed up the war’s conclusion, while the Japanese followed

traditional military values to make their advances.

The question of ethics in modern warfare is something that has certainly

been confronted – by the United Nations, for example – but is extremely difficult to

control, regulate, or observe in some cases. The dropping of the atomic bombs

happened before some of this regulation was put through, resulting in a direct
attack on innocent civilian lives. The United States government had a very good
Stewart Wenner - 6
idea of what the bomb was capable of, but chose to ignore the numerous warnings

by scientists and experts. The Szilard Petition, composed by a group of engineers

working on the Manhattan Project, stated outright that “the war has to be brought

speedily to a successful conclusion and the destruction of Japanese cities by means

of atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel,

however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present

circumstances” (Szilard). Szilard and his colleagues also acknowledged that the

main purpose of the bomb would be to completely annihilate cities, and they

obviously disagreed with this usage. This annihilation must have been what the

United States desired, because they went right ahead with the attack.

The only thing most of these people were guilty of was being Japanese, and

living in Japan. In wartime, people of one group tend to turn the opposing group into

simply “the enemy”, as beings that are almost non-human and completely alien.

After this is done, any sort of attack is usually justified in their minds: “Once people

are defined as being outside [our] universe, offenses against them are not violations

of the normative order and do not trigger criminal sanctions. Excluding a group from

the universe of obligations is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for

genocide” (Gamson). This is an unfortunate, but very true, aspect of contemporary

warfare. Even as the world has become significantly more connected and

intertwined, or perhaps as a result of this, differences have risen up between groups

and have served to create harsh divides between cultures and ideologies. This,

without a doubt, happened between the United States and Japan during World War

II. Looking at the Japanese internment camps, for example, people from Japan were

discriminated against and displaced from their normal roles in society in the United
States. They were portrayed as evil and un-American, and these were people who

were part of American society. In fact, “these Japanese Americans, half of whom

were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or

any factual basis, in bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed

guards” (Ina). Even though there was nothing to accuse these people of, they were

discriminated against based on their ethnicity. Thus, one can only imagine the true

portrayal in the United States of the Japanese soldiers and peopleStewart

actuallyWenner
living in- 7

Japan. President Truman himself called the Japanese “savages, ruthless, merciless

and fanatic”, revealing just how biased American society and government had

become (Truman).The Japanese as a whole were defined as “the enemy”, and as

such were dehumanized to the point that any attack against them – even an atomic

bomb dropped on a mainly civilian target – was easily justified by the American

people and government. According to a Senate-ratified treaty, the attacks on the

Japanese cities were not even legal; one line in the treaty reads that “the attack or

bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which

are undefended is prohibited” (“Laws and Customs”). Something is clearly wrong

when an illegal bombing is not only performed but also defended. The atomic

attacks truly were bordering on genocide if they had continued, in that the US was

paying no heed as to who was being killed, as long as they were Japanese. The

usage of the atomic bombs was essentially a threat to the Japanese, telling them

that their national extinction – a true genocide – was completely possible and in the

hands of the United States.

The use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki may have ended the war earlier than it would have without it. It may have

saved millions of American – and Japanese – lives in the long run. That doesn’t,
however, mean that the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese

civilians is somehow justified. We have reached a point in time where warfare is

more devastating and destructive than ever, and our regulations and preventative

measures have simply not been keeping pace with its development. World War II

was a point where this concept was revealed to the world in a rather shocking

manner; the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were examples of how dangerous

war had become. The decision to attack these mostly civilian targets shows just how

convoluted some national governments and their militaries have become; when

innocent people begin to suffer significantly as a result of judgments such as this,

we know that something is wrong with the ethical system in place for war time.
Stewart Wenner - 8
Even though the United States was fully aware of the capabilities of the atomic

bomb, they chose to use it on a target regardless of its civilian population. The fact

that the Japanese had been defined as “the enemy” in the minds of almost all

Americans led to a completely unethical and immoral attack that is very difficult to

justify. Sometimes all it takes is a photograph to show people that war is not a

game of any kind, but a serious matter which affects real people in real places, a

terrible sort of contact zone that in this case led to what can certainly be described

as a human tragedy and disaster.

 Works Cited

“The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Chapter 5 – The Selection of the

Target.” The Avalon

Project. 2008. Oct. 2008. <

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp05.asp>.

Gamson, William A. “Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the Politics of Exclusion.” 1994.

Boston College. 30

Oct. 2008. <http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-

file/PresidentialAddress1994.pdf>.

Groves, Leslie. “Official Bombing Order.” U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77,

Records of the Office

of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, TS Manhattan Project

File. July 25, 1945.

Nov. 2008. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html>.

Ina, Satsaku. “Children of the Camps.” PBS. 1999. Oct. 2008.

<http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/index.html>.

“Laws and Customs of War on Land.” United States Senate. March 14, 1902. Nov.

2008.

<http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html>.

Mahoney, Leo J. “Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima: An Ironic Comparison.” 2005. Kafkas

University. 30 Oct.

2008. <http://www1.dogus.edu.tr/dogustru/journal/cilt_6_sayi_1/M00131.PDF?

ref=Klasistanbul.Com>.
Szilard, Leo. “Szilard Petition.” U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of

the Chief of

Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76. July

3, 1945. Nov. 2008. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-03.html>.

“Survivors of Hiroshima.” SIRS Knowledge Source. Oct. 2008.

<http://www.sirs.com>.

Truman, Harry S. “Diary.” Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman.

July 25, 1945. Oct.

2008. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html>.