Hiroshima: Two Atomic Bombs as the Foundation for US Domination

Today is the tragic anniversary of America’s use of atomic bombs against Japan. It was, in fact, the last act of World War II and at the same time, the first act of the Cold War. What should be stressed is not only the bombing’s nature as a “post-Western” act (see D. Fennell, “The Post-Western Condition: Between Chaos and Civilization,” Minerva Press, London 1999), as the first instance in Western history where the annihilation of innocent individuals (women, old people, children) was legitimized, but also the complete lack of remorse or collective processing of the crime committed. The act was not even defined as a crime, but as a legitimate act of war or, from another point of view, a “necessary evil” (against an already defeated and powerless Japan).

The dropping of the atomic bombs is a defining moment of the 20th century, which influenced where we are today. The modern-day establishment of America as a “universal monarchy” originated with the scandalous absolution of the U.S. for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There is an unjustifiable imbalance between the well-founded disapproval of the Soviet Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps and the lack of condemnation against the atomic bombs and other bombings. The consequence of not equalizing judgement in these situations is altogether too well-known: By characterizing bombings as a “necessary evil,” their use can be legitimized, as shown by events in Vietnam (1965), Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (1991 and 2003) and Libya (2011).

For this reason, the U.S. can declare the killing of half a million children in the Gulf War, and the massacre of innocent people in Hiroshima, a necessary evil. In the words of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, spoken in May 1996, “This is a very hard choice, but the price … we think the price is worth it.” Along with the reductio ad Hitlerum,* an ideological concept of humanity is almost always used to justify imperialism. The war, which claims to be humanitarian, not only serves to glorify itself, but also to delegitimize the enemy, who is denied, in principle, the very quality of being human. Conflict, against an enemy who has been reduced to Hitler and is therefore not considered human, can be extended to an extreme level of inhumanity, completely neutralizing any response that prohibits the unlimited use of violence. This is what Schmitt referred to as the “discriminatory power of division inherent in humanitarian ideology.”

Where there is a Hitler, there must also be a new Hiroshima: This is the premise of absolute hostility and its ideological logic.

The ideological system that justifies a lack of equivalence between crimes is fully operational, even in the modern-day scope of the “fourth World War” (see C. Preve, “La Quarta Guerra Mondiale,” All’insegna del Vetro, Parma 2008). Following the two world wars and the Cold War, the present-day World War began in 1989 and is of a geopolitical and cultural nature. It has been carried out by the “universal monarchy” (an expression, taken from Kant, to label the winning power of the Cold War) against all the populations and nations unwilling to submit themselves to its domination: Iraq (1991), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2004) and Libya (2011). These were the main stages of the new World War, a crazed plan to ensure global submission to the military, cultural and economic power of the universal monarchy.

The first step to legitimize an imperial invasion masked as a humanitarian intervention is still the reductio ad Hitlerum of the to-be-invaded country’s head of state, often alongside a “rogue state” characterization (in a total a priori delegitimization of their existence). From Saddam Hussein to Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Fidel Castro to Bashar al-Assad, the farce is always the same. All the powers who do not bend to the Nomos of the economy, for which the universal monarchy is a standard-bearer, are reduced to new Hitlers and the newest incarnation of Nazism.

The media’s invention of new bloodthirsty “Hitlers” has been successful in activating the “Hiroshima model,” the legitimization of bombing as a necessary evil. Where there is a Hitler, it is likely that there will also be a new Hiroshima. The ideology of the Pax Romana is a permanent feature of history. Each and every empire characterizes its own warfare as peaceful, while delegitimizing the warfare of those who resist as terrorism and barbarity. Tacito’s proverb, Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant, “they make a desert, and call it peace,” has never been more relevant.

*Editor’s Note: Reductio ad Hitlerum (Latin for “reduction to Hitler”) is a term coined by philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951. It is a humorous comparison between an opponent’s views and those held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party, with a suggested rationale of guilt by association.