Slashdot Mirror
G-7 Leaders At Hiroshima To Urge More Visits to Nuclear Bombsites (voanews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Sunday leaders from the G-7 countries gathered in Hiroshima Sunday, a gesture which the Japanese government hopes will send a message of peace and nuclear nonproliferation. The seven world leaders will first honor the dead at Hiroshima Peace Park and visit an atomic bomb museum, which the Associated Press calls "a dream come true for many surviving victims, who have for decades campaigned to bring leaders of nuclear states to Hiroshima to see the damage." In addition, Japan hopes that the world leaders will also issue a "Hiroshima Declaration," which reportedly will call for more transparency about stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but also more visits to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by both world leaders and young people.
71 years and they still haven't haven't fixed the place?
Get over yourself.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not at all remarkable in terms of destruction. The Allies leveled the whole of Germany and Japan during WWII. If you only fixate on two cities, then you are belittling the entire rest of the war.
Also, you are belittling the Japanese. They are not a nation to be trivialized and that's exactly what you doing when you try to claim that we could do anything short of everything we could.
Typical "White Man's Burden" BS.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima will forever live on as America's shame.
Easy for you to say, 70 years on, not having lived during that time or having faced the ruthless Japs who were giving little quarter in their attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How about all the other Japanese War Crimes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
---
Further, the irony is that the firebombings of Tokyo killed as many people as the nukes did. Where are the protests of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
---
Finally, would invading have been better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. To the present date, total combined American military casualties of the seventy years following the end of World War IIâ"including the Korean and Vietnam Warsâ"have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there remained 120,000 Purple Heart medals in stock. The existing surplus allowed combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field."
We are STILL handing out WWII Purple Hearts to this day because we ended up not having to invade. If the Japs didn't want to get nuked, perhaps they shouldn't have started a war of aggression.
where atomic weapons weren't used, there is no nation of Japan, just the mass graves of thousands of allied soldiers, millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians (most of whom died of disease and starvation).
Nothing grows there because of the defoliants that were used. The Japanese are extinct.
Still the whales and dolphins are a lot better off than in our timeline.
Does it matter how you kill people, or how efficiently, surely it is the number of people killed that is most relevant? Ideology killed far more people than technology ever did. Total dead in WWII, about 70 million, number of people killed by communism in the following decades, about 60 million.
You are pathetic. The Soviet army helped to end the war in Europe and did nothing for the war in Asia. Which is why there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan did have plenty of opportunity to surrender before Hiroshima and even Nagasaki, but never did. The Japanese ministery of war was running a total war until the Emperor discovered it and decided given Hiroshima and Nagasaki to surrender.
Achille Talon
Hop!
1. Japan itself convinced the US to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. When US troops fought the Japanese from island to island on the approach to the big island, they encountered waves of fanatical suicide attacks on land, and from the air. American soldiers were shocked to encounter large numbers of Japanese civilian women who killed their children and then killed themselves in front of the Americans rather than simply surrendering and being given food and water. Japanese sailors at sea who'd been aboard ships that were sunk would frequently swim away from US sailors who were trying to pull them from the water (a centuries' old international naval traditions of plucking enemies from the sea, everyone sailor's true adversary), often choosing to drown themselves. The imperial leadership of Japan had convinced its population that Americans were barbarians who would treat them so badly that death was preferable. This was evil propaganda intended to convince the people to sacrifice themselves to protect their emperor-god from the disgrace of surrender.
2. Japan itself brought-on Nagasaki. After Hiroshima, the US told the imperial Japanese government to surrender or face more, and the imperial Japanese government chose not to surrender. The allies at the time were demanding "unconditional surrender" and when they Japanese, AFTER Nagasaki still refused to unconditionally surrender and instead asked to be allowed to preserve their emperor, the allies compromised and allowed that condition - but the action proved the imperial govt would have been willing to get nuked some more to preserve the moron in the palace. The Japanese negotiations were NOT focused on the Japanese people, who would have been saved BEFORE Hiroshima had the emperor held any concern for his citizens and surrendered THEN.
3. NO American president could have possibly sent American men to invade Japan and die by the hundreds of thousands and then later have been exposed to have had a weapon he could have dropped from one plane with no American casualties at all and won the war. Such a president would have been forcibly removed from office, and tried and executed for treason. This was a WORLD WAR. Millions of people were dead and maimed.
I am one of those Americans who is glad the bomb was developed AND used. I Had family who fought and probably would have died had the bombs not been used, and who rejects the silly out-of-context moralizing by people who have no experience with war and are too young to know anything about REAL war (as opposed to the phone mini-wars we now pretend to wage).
The Koreans and Chinese might have a different insight on "mass murder".
The Japanese proposed conditional surrender terms - some of which would have left the military leaders free, or ever still in power. There was no way in HELL that was going to happen. Unconditional surrender was all we were going to accept, especially after we saw how WWI's terrible peace led directly to WWII in Europe.
Since apparently the eventual plan was to drop bombs as part of the invasion of operations Olympic and Coronet to soften up the Japanese. It was my understanding one of the reasons to use them for real was to figure out how far in front of the invasion to drop them so they didn't take out the troops. Oh, and they had one more ready for the end of August and then the US was REALLY going to ramp up productions. (Something like 20-30 nukes by the end of 45.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
If only a bombing site were closer to me. Perhaps we could drop some more bombs so that more people can witness the destructive power they hold. That way people won't have to travel all the way to Japan.
This is stupid, IMHO, and sounds like a means to guilt people into visiting Japan and spend some money there.
I made a trip to Germany some years ago to visit a friend stationed there while in the US Army. We took a look at some old castles, churches, drank some German beer and ate some German food. We also saw Hitler's "eagles nest", the remains of the Berlin wall, a memorial to the Jews killed, and a concentration camp museum. A memorable experience but not near as memorable as seeing films on the concentration camps, or Youtube videos of talks on the subject, or just listening to my grandparents talk about what World War II meant to them. There are ways to relate the horrors of war to people besides a viewing of where it happened. I admit that we should not destroy these sites, or prevent people from visiting them, but visiting the sites is not the only way to understand what happened there.
What is also lost is how "mutually assured destruction" may have kept the Cold War from becoming a one that burned at a million degrees over Manhattan.
I think that the USA should keep it's nuclear weapons. Even if we never use them again in anger I do believe that their mere presence keeps us safer than if we got rid of them.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Well, I'd characterize it as "The Soviet army ended the war in Europe, and we helped". No slight against the US and other allies, as we pretty much defeated Japan on our own as well, even though we prioritized the war in Europe.
There were *many* reasons for dropping atomic weapons on Japan. I think people stumble a bit when they point to specific events as the "reason", but I'd imagine the answer, like many complex things in life, was made up of a variety of motivations:
* Americans were becoming war-weary, but anything less than total victory would have been seen as a slap in the face to those who fought.
* The Japanese were defending their home territory fanatically, and projections for losses of life on *both* sides were horrendous.
* Russia was planning to invade with their vast manpower and disregard for casualties, and the US feared it would have potentially occupied large portions of Japan, turning it into a communist puppet state like with Eastern Europe.
* Japan seemed unwilling to concede to unconditional surrender, even in the face of certain military defeat, instead adopting a strategy of inflicting massive casualties against invaders to force more favorable terms.
* Many in the US wanted to test nuclear weapons on live targets to learn their destructive potential
* US leaders / military wanted to demonstrate the might of the those weapons to the Soviets and the world at large as a warning against future actions against our interests
* The American people would likely have demanded an impeachment of a President who didn't use the weapons at his disposal to win the war.
It's hard to say how these factors all weighed into the decision and in what proportions. Only Truman would really know that.
Ultimately, though, there's an argument to be made that, whatever forced the Japanese hand into timely surrender ultimately saved many thousands of allied soldiers lives as well as saving the lives of hundreds of thousands or even *millions* of Japanese from the horror and suffering of a protracted land campaign, or mass starvation inflicted by blockades and isolation, as some have argued for (starvation was already becoming a problem). We could also argue that Japan is far better off today having been forced to completely surrender and accept the efforts by the US to help rebuild Japan into a modern liberal democracy.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
No actual problems left so lets go back and wallow in the old ones. The direct result of the bombs, the surrender, the subsequent governance and unwavering economic and military allied status with the US is that Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis worth hundreds of billions and populated by 1.17 million healthy, safe Japanese. But lets set all of that aside and haunt the remnants of a 70 year old war so we can tsk tsk at the US.
Pathetic.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Fun fact: the US military was going full-on for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. The atom bomb was top-secret, remember? Casualty estimates were huge for both sides. The Japanese had a defense plan, and it was a good one. They had correctly predicted what the Americans were going to do. It would have been a bloodbath. When the Japanese surrendered it was a huge relief to both sides.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yes, it's quite easy for him to say, since scholars and even the USA Government already agreed on that being the case.
No they haven't... The US Government has NEVER said anything remotely close to that...
And you can find scholars on both sides of the issue, you'll never get that group to agree on this sort of thing...
The US governmentt never stated that officially, as for scholars... Let them spend some time in a foxhole.
Amen to that... too many "smart people" have ideas and opinions on things they have only read about...
A more useful exercise is to interview and ask the US soldiers who fought on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and were facing having to invade Japan itself if they thought it was a good idea.
* Japan seemed unwilling to concede to unconditional surrender, even in the face of certain military defeat, instead adopting a strategy of inflicting massive casualties against invaders to force more favorable terms.
Correct. There's evidence that they were willing to surrender, but they had guarantees they wanted and the US demanded an unconditional surrender. I don't think it's hard to understand why they would have been unwilling to do an unconditional surrender after all the propaganda they heard about how evil American soldiers were. Even after 2 atomic bombs got dropped, it took the emperor himself to force the military to do an unconditional surrender. There were still plenty of people int he military who wanted to fight on.
Not to digress but by at least by January 1945 if not a few months earlier both Himmler and Goring were trying separately to secretly negotiate a surrender to the non-Soviet allies that would have allowed that guy to run Germany in a post WWII order. The US refused, telling both of them that they had to go to trial for war crimes at the end of the war. I think it's worth questioning whether the desire for revenge on one guy (whichever offer they took, the Allies could have demanded the other guy go to trial) was worth spending 4 more months of fighting and all those lives lost on all sides just to ensure that those guys went to a war crimes trial. In fact, Himmler killed himself with a cyanide pill shortly after his identity was discovered when he was in a POW camp and as we know Goring had a cyanide pill smuggled to him hours before his execution so so much for the idea of bringing them justice.
I think it's worth questioning whether the desire for revenge on one guy (whichever offer they took, the Allies could have demanded the other guy go to trial) was worth spending 4 more months of fighting and all those lives lost on all sides just to ensure that those guys went to a war crimes trial.
Why do you think it's only about revenge? The likely outcome here would be that the one that survived would quickly be deposed. The real problem is what happens in a couple of decades when Germany potentially decides to make a go of it again? It's worth noting that the current route has resulted in no third world war for seventy years and no one currently looking to start that war either.
Now you probably will say that the "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not The US Government", or something like that (it was "only" the result of the mandate from the Secretary of War pursuant to a directive from President Roosvelt). Well, whatever.
All you have to do is believe the survey respondants. A local television station has "surveys" too.
If you believe the results, all americans believe that children should be issued sidearms at birth, and should be armed in school, that the bill of rights needs suspended, and all manner of idiotic stuff.
Nope, all that those folk had to do was actually surrender. And of course, I can't know, but My guess is that if we nuced them on January 1, 1946, the survey would have shown that they were planning on surrendering on January 31st 1946.
The only time that a surrender takes place is the time it takes place.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.