60th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing.

[Rase]

Japan marks 60th anniversary of Hiroshima


Saturday, 06 August , 2005, 08:06

Hiroshima:: With wreaths, prayers and emotional calls for the abolition of all nuclear weapons, the Japanese city of Hiroshima is marking the 60th anniversary of the world's first atomic attack.
A relative of one of Hiroshima's more than 140,000 dead joined a child in ringing a bell at 8:15 am, the exact moment 60 years ago when a single US bomb flattened the city.



Under a scorching sun, some 55,000 people recited silent prayers and laid flowers before a memorial to the dead within sight of the famous A-bomb dome, a former exhibition hall burned to a skeleton by the bomb's incinerating heat.

"Today, we are all Hibakusha," UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a speech read in his name, using the Japanese word for victims of nuclear bombings.

Before dawn, residents of Hiroshima ranging from workers in uniform to old men walking with canes gathered at the memorial in the heart of the city to burn incense, lay flowers and say prayers for the dead.

Michie Kakimoto, a slender 79-year-old who needs a cane to walk, said she still "cannot explain" the suffering she endured on August 6, 1945.

"For more than 50 years after the war, I couldn't come here. And I can't visit the museum," she said.

With another 5,375 survivors of the Hiroshima bombing dying in the past year, leaders recommitted themselves to keeping alive the memories of the horror 60 years ago.


Annan said that for all the pledges not to repeat the tragedy of 60 years ago, "Sadly, the world has made little progress."

"We are witnessing continued efforts to strengthen and modernize nuclear arsenals. We also face a real threat that nuclear weapons will spread," he said.

"Without concerted action, we may face a cascade of nuclear proliferation," Annan said in a statement read in his name by Nobuyasu Abe, the UN undersecretary for disarmament.

The 60th anniversary of the world's first nuclear attacks comes amid tension with both North Korea and Iran, which are locked in heated negotiations with the international community over their nuclear ambitions.

Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba named nuclear states by name, accusing them of threatening humanity by their "selfish" attachment to nuclear weapons.

He called for the United Nations to take concrete action to abolish nuclear weapons by 2020, but acknowledged a UN meeting in May made little progress reviewing the main treaty on ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He said the conference "left no doubt that the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and a few other nations wishing to become nuclear-weapon states are ignoring the majority voices of the people and governments of the world, thereby jeopardizing human survival."

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, speaking somberly after laying a wreath before a coffin listing the names of nuclear victims, recommited Japan to "take the lead in the international community" on nuclear disarmament.

Amid tension with neighboring countries over Japan's history, Koizumi also said Japan was steadfast in its post-World War II pacifism.

"We are the only nation in human history that suffered from atomic bombing," Koizumi said.

"With strong determination not to repeat the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan continues to keep its peace constitution and stick to the three non-nuclear principles," Koizumi said, referring to Japan's 1967 commitment not to produce, possess or allow the entry into its territory of nuclear weapons.

The Hiroshima bombing killed more than 140,000 people either immediately or in the months that followed from horrific burns or radiation. The United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on August 9 on Nagasaki, killing another 70,000 people. Emperor Hirohito surrendered on August 15.

Link.

Hiroshima Memorial Photos.

As a question that I've been wondering, do you think it was a good choice to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese?

From what I've heard, it actually saved lives, though they were, of course American. Supposedly, the Americans predicted that it would lose between 500,000 and 1,000,000 troops if it stormed Japan with infantry and armor. Howwever, I don't remember where I read this, so I may be wrong.

[Hawkeye]

When is killing innocents ever justified?

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

no, it was very wrong of us to do that. we could have done something else dramatic to stop the war. I think inoccent lives should never be lost.

[Madame Adequate]

The absolute lowest anti-nuke estimates put the loss of US soldiers at over 200,000 men. Most estimates are rather higher, and it seems that a million plus is not an unreasonable supposition to make.

Moreover, it did not just save American lives, it saved Japanese lives. As the Japanese repeatedly showed, they were a tenacious enemy with determination that makes today's foes look completely uncommitted. When Okinawa was taken, over 100,000 civilians took their own lives due to the propoganda spread about the US, that they were literallly demons, that to be a marine one had to kill one's own mother, and so forth. Imagine that scene in every population center in Japan.

The firebombing of Tokyo took as many lives as either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and bombing runs would only have intensified as the land war dragged on. Imagine death on the scale of the nuke in every major city in Japan.

Sad as it is, the nukes were what eventually forced Japan's hand. Emperor Hirohito finally surrendered after the second bomb (And the US were bluffing about a third, which would not in actuality be ready for months.), but despite this there was a plan by very senior military figures to overthrow Hirohito and claim he had declared the war would continue. It came quite close to fruition as I hear it, but I've not looked into the details of it. Anyway, to see that the military was prepared to continue to fight after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND with the threat of a third bomb looming, shows plainly that surrender wasn't happening easily.

The Japanese were, incidentally, training schoolchildren - eight year olds, male and female - to use bamboo spears to fight off the Americans. They were also training children to strap explosives to themselves and roll under tanks. The situation would have literally been Iraq times ten thousands, throughout the entire nation, not ending until the Emperor declared it over, if he ever did so. The mandate was not from some questionable divine entity, but from a real figure on Earth who ruled Japan in all ways, and that was that. He was a God, you did as He said.

Nuclear weapons posses terrible power, but if we had not learnt about their effects when we did, we might well not be around to care now. MAD was baically what stopped the Cold War heating up; if nukes were simply very large bombs, as they were believed to be until some weeks after they were dropped and reports of radiation-related deaths were finally shown not to be fabrication, it would have been far easier to deploy them. There might well have been a nuclear exchange with no understanding of the potential consequences.

[Carnage]

When is killing innocents ever justified?

There are no innocent people in war. Its all out one team vs the other if your not a team player, get far away from the war.

[ZeZipster]

When is killing innocents ever justified?

There are no innocent people in war. Its all out one team vs the other if your not a team player, get far away from the war.

This is recent. Believe it or not, there was a time when killing civilians was pointless. Farmers were farmers, they had no training and were useless in war. Now farmers can work in factories that make weapons. If my memory from my World History class serves me, this is called Total War.

[nik0tine]

Let me ask you this, did the United States even have to invade Japan? At that point in the war, we had all but destroyed thier Navy. There was nothing they could do to harm us. So, in all reality, what was the point of invading the island of Japan?

Don't know? Well then, I'll tell you. Look at things from a geographical standpoint. The United States and it's allies already had control over western Europe. If the United States built bases in western Europe, they could attack the Soviet Union from the west. We already had this ability.

However, if the United States had bases in Japan, it would have given us a huge advantage over the Soviet Union. Military bases in Japan would have allowed the United states to attack the the USSR from the east via a marine landing (which I assume would be similar to Normandy). With Japan, the United states could attack the Russians from the East and the West at the exact same time. Forcing Russia to fight a two front war would severly hamper their ability to defend themselves. They would have to split thier military in half, thus, they would only have half of the fighting power on each front. (This is the same thing that happened to Hitler in WW2)

Now, the Atomic Bomb was not solely dropped to save American lives. Dropping the bomb sent out a message to the entire world that A) we had the bomb and B) that we had more than one. Was it necessary to drop both bombs on Japan? Was it necessary to drop the bomb without warning? Couldn't we have told them that we had the bomb, and given them the chance to surrender first? We could have, but we didn't. The United States of America did not give two s about the lives of the innocent Japanese. All they cared about was getting an upperhand over the Russians, and making a statement that pretty much said "We can kick your ass."

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I won't get into the morality of the situation, but I will say that given the tenacity of the Japanese, the mere threat of the bomb would undoubtedly have not done much, possibly even doing more harm than good.

[Shlup]

As I understand it the bombings essentially ended the war. Now war isn't justified in the first place, but if the bombings were indeed responsible for the end of the war it seems worth it to me. I guess.

War sucks all around.

[Shadow Nexus]

I am amazed at how frivolous some comments can get. How can you even attempt to justify such atrocities? It amazes me someone can actually defend it, it even impresses me to see some people are even proud of that (not in this thread, yet). You can't go making predictions on how many would have died, because all estimations are that, purely estimations.

I don't really want to add much more, just to point out I liked Nik0tine's post, as I had never viewed the situation like that, but hey, he has a point. I do believe that, even if the invassion of Japan had been necessary- and considering the situation, one could argue it was- the bombs are still not to be justified. I could really say more, but I'd rather just show you this image I found long ago on the internet, saved, and uploaded today. Just in case you are afraid I am going to show a pile of corpses or something, just want to say it's simply a text hanged in a wall, a text wich the one I agree 100%:
http://membres.lycos.fr/discepolo/hi...a-memorial.jpg

[Rye]

*sigh* Here comes another anti-USA warring EoTW thread.

I don't agree with the bombing, but it did end the war, and like Shlup said, war sucks. I really don't know what to think about it.

[Slothy]

Now, the Atomic Bomb was not solely dropped to save American lives. Dropping the bomb sent out a message to the entire world that A) we had the bomb and B) that we had more than one. Was it necessary to drop both bombs on Japan? Was it necessary to drop the bomb without warning? Couldn't we have told them that we had the bomb, and given them the chance to surrender first? We could have, but we didn't. The United States of America did not give two s about the lives of the innocent Japanese. All they cared about was getting an upperhand over the Russians, and making a statement that pretty much said "We can kick your ass."

For starters, back then we didn't have missiles that could hit a target within 20 metres. We couldn't launch surgical strikes on military targets in an effort to save civilian lives. Do you want to know how pilots knew when to drop a bomb during an air raid? They quite literally flew a very specific course for a certain amount of time in the hopes that would get them over the target when they release their bombs. The military had no interest in hitting a bunch of civilian homes if they could hit a factory producing fighter planes, but the fact is, it took a lot of planes, a lot of bombs, and a lot of luck to even come close. Conventional bombing tactics at the time could easily have killed as many civilians before the war would have ended. They just couldn't hit their targets with the accuracy they would have preferred.

As for the argument of could we have warned them? The U.S. built the bomb and didn't even fully comprehend the power it had until after they dropped them. The same was even true of the Hydrogen bomb when it was developed. Telling Japan would have done little except give them warning that we would drop a very large bomb. What's another bomb being dropped in a war? Would they even have believed it had the power it did if the U.S. simply told them? At the time, nobody could truly understand the destructive power of the Atomic Bomb. A weapon of mass destruction is only effective at detering an enemy if you use it, at least once. Then both sides realize what they need to be afraid of.

[DMKA]

War sucks all around.

[War Angel]

World War II was a war that killed millions upon millions of innocent people. That is not right... however, in the grand spectrum of things, and even though it is horrible to say so, the atomic attack on Japan saved a lot of lives, while killing many as well.

By a conventional invasion (and no, you cannot subdue a nation that's out to kill you without controlling it from within), it is said there about 500,000 American soldiers would've been killed, and a few good millions of Japanese soldiers, along with many civilians as well. The bomb killed 'only' about 140,000. A huge sum, but still smaller than a few millions.

The rules were broken waaay before the atomic bombs was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Singling out every event of unlawful use of force, in a war that was total in every single aspect of it, is pointless and stupid.

[Madame Adequate]

Let me ask you this, did the United States even have to invade Japan? At that point in the war, we had all but destroyed thier Navy. There was nothing they could do to harm us. So, in all reality, what was the point of invading the island of Japan?

Because otherwise, the US would A) Not have won and B) Not have met the agreed-upon condition set by the Allies leaders, which was to extract total surrender.

The Japanese would have been back, rebuilt their navy and tried again. Maybe they'd have tried to develop the Bomb themselves. Who knows? Until they were actually defeated, Japan had one of the most warlike mentalities on the planet, and they had also become very good at war.

Now, the Atomic Bomb was not solely dropped to save American lives. Dropping the bomb sent out a message to the entire world that A) we had the bomb and B) that we had more than one. Was it necessary to drop both bombs on Japan? Was it necessary to drop the bomb without warning? Couldn't we have told them that we had the bomb, and given them the chance to surrender first? We could have, but we didn't. The United States of America did not give two s about the lives of the innocent Japanese. All they cared about was getting an upperhand over the Russians, and making a statement that pretty much said "We can kick your ass."

No, it was also dropped to save Japanese lives. There are hundreds of reports of how children were being trained to fight the American invaders. Okinawa resulted in more civilian deaths than the explosions from either bomb. That would have been repeated everywhere.

There was a chance given to surrender after Fat Man was dropped. It wasn't taken. So we dropped Little Boy as well. Then the writing on the wall finally became somewhat legible.

Showing Russia that we were more powerful than them was also a contributing factor, as was keeping Japan out of Russian hands. Doesn't mean every other factor is eradicated.

I am amazed at how frivolous some comments can get. How can you even attempt to justify such atrocities? It amazes me someone can actually defend it, it even impresses me to see some people are even proud of that (not in this thread, yet). You can't go making predictions on how many would have died, because all estimations are that, purely estimations.

Sorry, but we've been fighting each other for over ten millennia. We're not too shabby at making predictions of how many losses we'll incur. And even the lowest estimates put casualties at over 200,000 US soldiers (Nevermind Imperial Army deaths and civilians losses.); when so many sources will commit to a figure significantly above that, I'm happy enough to presume militarily trained professionals might have some reasonable idea of what they are talking about.

I can justify the atrocities because there is no doubt in my mind that dropping the bombs saved lives. Had the war continued without Fat Man and Little Boy, there would have simply been firebombings instead, which would likely have killed just as many people - in every population center in Japan, nevermind the ground invasion. I'll take a few hundred thousand over a few million deaths, kplzthx.