national

Hiroshima marks 72nd anniversary of atomic bombing

15 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

I am proud as a Japanese that the ceremony is held quietly without violent demonstrations or protests against America.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I am proud as a Japanese that the ceremony is held quietly without violent demonstrations or protests against America.

Why would there be? After the war, everything was blamed on the militaristic government and officials and the Americans came away scot free, as heroes, as they nursed a dilapidated Japan back to full health--after they had dropped two atom bombs and firebombed the heck out of Tokyo.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

The combined number of hibakusha, people who survived either bombing

I ask this question every time we see a story like this. What are the requirements to be deemed a legit survivor? Did they have to be a certain distance from the blasts? Did they have to pass through and get radiation poisoning? Did they have to suffer injuries and then recover? So far what I've heard seems so nebulous that everyone in Japan who didn't die qualifies as a hibakusha.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@sensei

Exactly. Saw a bloke on telly today whom the programme was presenting as a hibakusha because he had leukaemia.

Fact is, he was eighty-nine.

I'm not a medic, but I'd be interested to hear the reasoning....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But Japan refused to participate in the treaty, along with the world's nuclear weapon states and other countries under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

So does that include North Korea in the list of treaty signatories?

Never again is a worthy goal in both thoughts and deeds.

Please don't judge Americans by our idiot President who says he wants to expand the nuclear weapons.

The world has about 15,000 nuclear weapons. 5,000 are in line to be dismantled, so 10,000 more need to be handled by the peoples of the world. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-nukes-world-could-destroy/

Zero nuclear weapons in the world is the goal.

Regardless, thank you Japan for reminding the world of how terrible these weapons are and please never let the world forget.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

After the war, everything was blamed on the militaristic government 

Blame is irrelevant, victory is everything. Victor's justice is simply realpolitik in action. If you don't like it, there's a committee at the UN to complain to, and have nothing done...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Her is arithmetic 2027-1945=82.

82 year anniversary

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Abe's granduncle, former pm preached no more A bomb in other countries and received Nobel Peace Award.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan is too honest to sign the treaty since like Israel Tokyo also can assemble nuclear weapons in 36 hours without breaking a sweat.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

With the prism of hindsight, it was still the correct decision. From a 'selfish' standpoint, given the projected Allied forces losses, it was worth it. 

From a humanitarian standpoint, given the projected CIVILIAN losses of invasion, it was worth it. Estimates of civilian casualties ran as high as TEN million. Sacrifice a couple hundred thousand on the altar of the Atomic God, or proceed conventionally and sacrifice millions?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"There was an extreme prejudge against Japanese at that time..."

Because Japanese cities were bombed? Before this happened, Japanese aircraft bombed the heck out of downtown Singapore, Georgetown, Manila, Chonquing, and dozens of other major foreign cities, killing lots of innocent civilians. The Japanese back home felt nothing but a sense of pride and celebration when those atrocities occurred. Talk about "prejudice."

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

JeffLeeToday 06:04 am JST"There was an extreme prejudge against Japanese at that time..."

The Japanese back home felt nothing but a sense of pride and celebration when those atrocities occurred. Talk about "prejudice."

Yes, talk about "prejudice". If you know ANYTHING about Japan during WWII the public were never told anything. There weren't even told of the continuous losses their military were facing in the Pacific from Midway onwards. The military controlled the press as any typical dictatorship does.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Each year on August 6 and 9, we are reminded of the "horrible effects" of atomic bombs and a renewed demands for the "Abolition of Nuclear Weapons" and a "World Without Nuclear Weapons". A "World without Nuclear Weapons" would be "World Peace" for the next generation.

What people of this current generation forget, or refuse to acknowledge, is that in 1945 Japan was AT WAR with the U.S. Given the circumstances during those times, the reality is that war participants will use any available or develop new weapons to WIN a war. Even Japan had a atomic bomb program (Ni-Go Project and F-Go Project) and had they were successful, there was no doubt they would have used it. The atomic bomb had to be used to force Japan to surrender; the alternative would have been a Soviet Union invading the northern part of Japan in August 1945, followed by the U.S. invasion of southern part of Japan in November 1945 and extending the war into possibly 1946 with more civilian and military casualties as the Japanese military would not surrender until every last Japanese citizen was killed. It would have been a very different Japan had the atomic bombs not been used and war ended as it did. I don't think people today would accept a divided Japan with communist-controlled North Japan and democracy-controlled South Japan.

There was a time (prior to 1945) when there was a World Without Nuclear Weapons. 

And did we have "World Peace"? World War I began in 1914, there was no nuclear weapons then.  Throughout the 1930s, Japan embarked on a military expansion in the Pacific region, a war with China, invasion of most of Southeast Asia, culminating in a attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. There were no nuclear weapons at that time either. In 1939, there were no nuclear weapons when World War II in Europe began.  Prior to 1945, nuclear weapons did not exist, yet major wars were being fought throughout the centuries.

Why have there never been the anticipated World War III between the U.S., Soviet Union and China involving all nations capable of waging Total All Out War? It should have happened, given the conflicts.

The reason is due to the existence and threat of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have made Total War Unthinkable. The threat of Total Destruction have forced nations capable of waging Total War to settle their differences through dialog and negotiations. Without that threat of Total Destruction, there would be little incentive to have dialog.

The fact is, nuclear weapons have actually promoted World Peace and kept a relative peaceful coexistence among nations capable of waging total war.

When nuclear weapons are abolished, Russia, China, U.S. and the rest of the world will revert back to Conventional Weapons, i.e, Non-Nuclear, to wage war. Conventional Weapons will made war THINKABLE again. The World Wars, undeclared wars throughout the latter part of the 20th century, including Korea, Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East have all been and are being fought with Conventional Weapons.

Is this what you all really want? Eliminate nuclear weapons, resort to non-nuclear conventional weapons and make Total War Thinkable again?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

 If you know ANYTHING about Japan during WWII the public were never told anything.

Are you kidding? They were told A LOT about their soldiers' "heroic" exploits. The contest to decapitate 100 Chinese, for example, generated a gushing media frenzy back at home.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites