Atom bomb survivor hopes Japan debut of 'Oppenheimer' will stoke nuclear debate

The most alarming thing is, the lessons from that era seem to be slowly getting unlearned.

The most alarming thing is, the lessons from that era seem to be slowly getting unlearned.

People are just having blackout for certain things.

Let's not forget the Tokyo firebombing killed far more people.

"I think it's important for the Oppenheimer film to be screened in Japan, so we can learn from it and not lose that awareness that we need to preserve a future for our loved ones."

It should've been screened here in Japan at least from last fall. It's come out everywhere but here.

She might not get the debate she wants though.

Had Japan not surrendered as a direct result of the bombings, and the invasions of Kyushu in 45 and Tokyo in 46 occurred, several orders of magnitude more Japanese would have perished. In the winter of 45 alone, US aid saved an estimated 15 million Japanese from starvation. And that does not count the millions of civilian deaths that would have resulted from an Okinawa-style battle of attrition on a vastly larger scale

The Imperial Japanese government knew this, and they didn’t care. In fact massive civilian casualties were part of the plan to prolong the war and draw the United States into a negotiated settlement.

As horrible as the bombings were, and I have visited both museums multiple times and I agree that the employment of nuclear weapons must never be repeated, they were the least-worst outcome to the war that the United States was resolved to winning decisively.

As horrible as the bombings were, and I have visited both museums multiple times and I agree that the employment of nuclear weapons must never be repeated, they were the least-worst outcome to the war that the United States was resolved to winning decisively.

Top comments.

they [nuclear weapons] were the least-worst outcome to the war that the United States was resolved to winning decisively.

Nah. They could have done a seige of Japan. They could basically do what ever they wanted.

Let's not forget the Tokyo firebombing killed far more people.

As usual, the anti-Japan uses whatboutism to deflect the blame onto the Japanese.

Good for her - and all the hibakusha - in trying to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

It must be so frustrating for them that rogue, tyrannical nations such as fascist Russia and North Korea still exist, and constantly threaten to use these very nuclear weapons - far, far bigger and stronger than those used in 1945.

A lot of things come to my mind, but one of the most significant one is why the Japanese government then did not end the war before it's forced to accept the unconditional surrender. A-bombs came while Japanese were preparing to counter the expected enemy landing with bamboo spears (to be deployed by citizens) as a main weapon, alas...

debate over nuclear weapons.

What does this mean? “Pro-nukes vs. anti-nukes”? Who is pro-nukes???

”Discussion over nuclear weapons” would be better. Better still, “Discussion on how best to eliminate nuclear weapons”.

That, however, is probably impossible.

"The only nation to have suffered atomic bombings, Japan has led global efforts to abolish the weapons."

Ummm... sorry, but no it most certainly is not, which is precisely why Japanese Prime Ministers refuse to sign any treaty to ban the weapons. How could they lead if they refuse to support what they are purportedly leading?

Also, Japan being offended on any movie that doesn't show Japan in a positive light or as the victim of war is just plain tired. Japan is tied to the movie, absolutely, and the bombings were among the worst atrocities committed by humankind in history, but the focus of the film is not about what the bombs did, so people here will feel offended. And hasn't the film actually been censored in some parts before its release here?

In any case, I like this woman and how positive she is about what the film being shown here can give us in terms of talking about the subject. She's not simply moaning and complaining about the film or how it was in competition with a flake of a movie like Barbie, but sees the potential for dialogue and suggests it should be watched. Good on her.

Let's hope the debut actually is about giving us some freaking nukes too when all our neighbors already has them while threaten every year to release them on us whenever they throw a tantrum.

Even India has them. Why can we?

Teruko Yahata Thankyou for making your voice heard and reaching out .

The A-bomb was simply a quick way to end the Japanese aggression on her neighboring countries. The US could have dropped one in Germany, but there were still many Jews there. What is the lesson here? If your country has an A-bomb, you have a say at the negotiating table.

She might not get the debate she wants though.

Why should she, though? Just because she survived an A-bomb, her voice and opinion are more entitled than those who haven't experienced it?

The most alarming thing is, the lessons from that era seem to be slowly getting unlearned.

Most important lesson is: Don't wake the sleeping dog. Japan "found out" the hard way, but for the most part, I think Japan has learned that lesson. Some people seem to have forgotten that.

The US could have dropped one in Germany

I don't think so. The war in Europe had ended before the A-bomb had been fully developed.

A-bombs came while Japanese were preparing to counter the expected enemy landing with bamboo spears

True. I met a Japanese man who told me that he was practicing as a young teenager with a bamboo spear when the Hiroshima bomb went off. He said he felt stupid.

I have to agree with what the comment above by John says. He is absolutely correct.

If the US had invaded the Japanese home islands far far far more Japanese citizens would have died. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but Japanese lives were saved by dropping these bombs. Just look at the events of the Battle of Okinawa as a reference.

I'd love to know what Japanese school books teach about Pearl Harbour, Nanjing, or Burma/Thailand campaigns and the prison camps. Probably not much at all. The history books paint Japan as the victim I imagine, and not the aggressor. It's a shame that truth has been twisted in such a way.

She might hate nuclear weapons because her past experiences but Nuclear weapons are a good deterrent against bullies.

I would say that Japan doesnt need to make a bomb because Japan can do it if it wants in a few months. Everybody knows this.

Japan has enough fissile material (plutonium and enriched Uranium for 1,000+ warheads.

Japan has Solid fuel rockets that are actually copies of American Minuteman rockets.(Epsilon)

Japan has ship reentry tech(OREX)

japan has lots of silos already made. Some of wich I have seen.

No matter what Japan did in the war (and they did many atrocious things), the US is the only country to drop a super bomb (atom bomb, not a nuke, which was developed later) on another country. Most of the deaths were civilian. This is not something to celebrate.

As to the two bombs avoiding an assault on the main island, Japan had signaled that they would surrender if the emperor could be left in place. The US refused, wanting only unconditional surrender. Japan was willing to surrender even with that one request abandoned. Look at John Toland's "The Rising Sun: The Decline and fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945." And the first act Gen. Macarthur did was to put the Emperor back in place.

As was pointed out in a comment above, the US could have sieged the island. Resources in Japan at that time being what they were, it would not have been a long siege.

This woman is simply saying what a lot of people in every country think. Nukes, if they are used, would be the start of many being used. The effect on people everywhere they are used would be devastating. The personal history she talks about should be something everyone should at least think about.

I objectively agree that the bomb stopped WWII, and prevented any other fighting. I accept that this could potentially mean less deaths had the war continued. But the reality is, we can never know that, and it ignores the human rights atrocity of committing genocide on an entire city. Women, children, non-combatants all going about their day, under a warring government who they could not say say no to. They are the true victims.

It's correct both that the bomb stopped the war, and that the bomb was a travesty and America's shame.

StrangerlandToday 01:47 am JST

I objectively agree that the bomb stopped WWII, and prevented any other fighting. I accept that this could potentially mean less deaths had the war continued. But the reality is, we can never know that, and it ignores the human rights atrocity of committing genocide on an entire city. Women, children, non-combatants all going about their day, under a warring government who they could not say say no to. They are the true victims.

It's correct both that the bomb stopped the war, and that the bomb was a travesty and America's shame.

Well we do know that Russia was lined up to spend unlimited manpower and also that it holds on to annexed territory with a death grip, so there is that to consider.

Gene HennighToday 01:43 am JST

No matter what Japan did in the war (and they did many atrocious things)

Yes, 10 million Chinese dead is many. Most would say a lot.

, the US is the only country to drop a super bomb (atom bomb, not a nuke, which was developed later) on another country. Most of the deaths were civilian. This is not something to celebrate.

Nobody celebrates it.

As to the two bombs avoiding an assault on the main island, Japan had signaled that they would surrender if the emperor could be left in place. The US refused, wanting only unconditional surrender. Japan was willing to surrender even with that one request abandoned. Look at John Toland's "The Rising Sun: The Decline and fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945." And the first act Gen. Macarthur did was to put the Emperor back in place.

Japan didn't convey such conditions to the right people: it was relying on the USSR as an intermediary and you can imagine how well that worked out.

As was pointed out in a comment above, the US could have sieged the island. Resources in Japan at that time being what they were, it would not have been a long siege.

It would have been costly in American lives, though. Why should the US have put their soldiers lives below Japanese civilians? It was fighting a total war and this was pre-4th Geneva convention.

A lot of things come to my mind, but one of the most significant one is why the Japanese government then did not end the war before it's forced to accept the unconditional surrender. 

They were under the assumption that the U.S. would deem the costs of an invasion too great and instead choose to grant Japan more favorable terms in a surrender.

As to the two bombs avoiding an assault on the main island, Japan had signaled that they would surrender if the emperor could be left in place. 

This was not the only condition of Japans initial agreement to surrender. They also demanded no occupation and the right to conduct their own war crime trials on their own military personnel.

As was pointed out in a comment above, the US could have sieged the island. Resources in Japan at that time being what they were, it would not have been a long siege.

Both Japanese and American estimates put the number of dead as a result of a siege as much higher than what happened as a result of the atomic bombs.

But the reality is, we can never know that, and it ignores the human rights atrocity of committing genocide on an entire city. Women, children, non-combatants all going about their day, under a warring government who they could not say say no to. They are the true victims.

Do you think civilians weren’t killed in bombing raids during the entirety of WW2 and that the only civilians killed were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

There is no debate: the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved somewhere around one to two million lives. The Japanese already suffered the bombing of Tokyo (non-atomic but with a very similar result) and were unfazed. The slogans were "we will all give our lives for the Mikado".

The atomic bombs avoided that they all give their lives.

I suggest debate within the classroom, the education system, after viewing the film.

However, the entire context, the history that is the war in Japan needs a revisit.

Including the politics of war, especially the fateful surprise attack on Pearl Harbour.

There is no debate: the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved somewhere around one to two million lives.

There is no escaping that any quotes of how many would have died had the bombs not dropped, are speculation. We can't know an alternate history, we can just guess what it may have been. And if people were good at predicting the future, we'd have fortune tellers.

It's the same justification that Putin uses for his invasion of Ukraine, and that the Americans used in their justification of Iraq; "we had to do it before they did".

The thing is, the "they" didn't, and the "we" did.

Actually the whole country playing the victim card here is their mechanism for not dealing with this problem internally, like Germany did for example.

"Japan killed millions of innocent civilians all across Asia but it's fine, we were also victims in this."

Actually the whole country playing the victim card here

The civilians of Japan were the victims. It's a very strong card.

War, will always interpret the meaning to/of competitive victimhood,

Does the final count of the civilian dead define future peaceful coexistence?

The horrific destructive force unleased on Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide lessons to guarantee future generations a peaceful coexistence for 21st century global community.

I honesty don't believe it does. Do you?

There is no escaping that any quotes of how many would have died had the bombs not dropped, are speculation. We can't know an alternate history, we can just guess what it may have been. And if people were good at predicting the future, we'd have fortune tellers.

It’s actually not speculation at all. The Japanese high command themselves admitted that they wanted to fight to the bitter end and there was even a small revolt when the Emperor agreed to surrender. When you take into consideration the amount of damage and death traditional bombing runs caused (the firebombing of Tokyo killing more than both atomic bombs combined) it’s a fact that more people would have died had the atomic bombs not been dropped, forcing their surrender.

StrangerlandToday 04:57 am JST

It's the same justification that Putin uses for his invasion of Ukraine,

Ukraine wasn't threatening or capable of being a threat to Russia. It also wasn't unilaterally in violation of Minsk. Apples and Oranges compared to the Pacific War.

It’s actually not speculation at all

Yes, supposed numbers of how many people may have died in an alternate reality is not speculation. Got it.

Ukraine wasn't threatening or capable of being a threat to Russia.

But Russia claimed they were, and used that as justification to invade.

Same as America used the supposed threat of Iraq WMD attacks as justification to invade.

Same as America used potential future deaths to justify dropping the bomb on civilians.

Yes, supposed numbers of how many people may have died in an alternate reality is not speculation. Got it.

“Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.”

Theres plenty of research and firm evidence that concludes more people would have died had the bombs not been dropped

But Russia claimed they were, and used that as justification to invade.

Russia never claimed Ukraine was a threat, they claimed NATO was a threat and didn’t want Ukraine aligning itself with NATO

Russia never claimed Ukraine was a threat, they claimed NATO was a threat and didn’t want Ukraine aligning itself with NATO

Same thing.

Strange land - are you really comparing the russians invading and killing Ukraine with the USA stopping the war Japan started with atomic bombs?

That's bottom of the barrel bad. Ukraine did not much bad, Japan was already over their extremely aggressive was that killed millions of civilians in Asia.

"Civilians"is a strong card? Not really! Japan started the war and America was going to end it one way or the other. There was no option to full Japanese surrender.

Let me explain it to you like I would do to a five years old:

One way meant scaring them to hell with the atomic bomb, bluffing they have more and hoping they'd surrender. Cost: 200k Japanese civilians and two bombs. USA loses nothing.

The other way would have been a full scale invasion from the SSoviets and Americans and fighting for every inch of life, Iwo Jima and Okinawan style - at huge civilian and military loses for both sides. It would have meant killing a huge percent of the population, the military AND American side losses.

In which skewed logic is the second way the preferable? Why would American lives be lost if they already had the solution to them not to be?

Strange land

Strangerland

are you really comparing the russians invading and killing Ukraine with the USA stopping the war Japan started with atomic bombs?

I made a specific comparison above, which part of it is incorrect:

But Russia claimed they were, and used that as justification to invade.

Same as America used potential future deaths to justify dropping the bomb on civilians.

"Civilians"is a strong card? Not really! Japan started the war

The Japanese government and military started the war. The people were just living their lives. So yeah, "civilians" is literally the strongest card. It should never be acceptable for civilians to be casualties in pursuit of rich men's political interests.

One way meant scaring them to hell with the atomic bomb, bluffing they have more and hoping they'd surrender. Cost: 200k Japanese civilians

And you think I'm the weird one for thinking that 200k civilian deaths is an appropriate price. Oh dear.

Why would American lives be lost if they already had the solution to them not to be?

I don't consider military lives to be equal to civilian lives. Military have chosen to die, civilians have not.

StrangerlandToday 07:40 am JST

Why would American lives be lost if they already had the solution to them not to be?

I don't consider military lives to be equal to civilian lives. Military have chosen to die, civilians have not.

That is absolutely over the top. Military have chosen to SERVE!!! In the case of the WW2, they chose to DEFEND without much alternative. All lives are important, particularly when you aren't the aggressor.

Military have chosen to SERVE!!!

They've chosen to kill for a reason. Just because you agree with the reason, doesn't remove moral culpability for killing someone. Remember, if all military refused to fight, there would be no more war. Just because that responsibility has been defused, does not eliminate it. Military have also made the choice that they are ready to die for their cause, civilians are just living their lives.

No amount of civilian deaths is justified to prevent military deaths.

StrangerlandToday 06:36 am JST

Ukraine wasn't threatening or capable of being a threat to Russia.

But Russia claimed they were, and used that as justification to invade.

Same as America used the supposed threat of Iraq WMD attacks as justification to invade.

Same as America used potential future deaths to justify dropping the bomb on civilians.

Russia can CLAIM what it wants. Objective reality is that Ukraine was not in NATO and was not a threat. Objective reality is that Japan sunk a large part of the US Pacific fleet, killed 10,000 US and Filipinos, kill 9,000 Commonwealth troops in Singapore, and attempted to seize the entire region. And that was just the beginning.

StrangerlandToday 07:53 am JST

Military have chosen to SERVE!!!

They've chosen to kill for a reason. Just because you agree with the reason, doesn't remove moral culpability for killing someone. Remember, if all military refused to fight, there would be no more war. Just because that responsibility has been defused, does not eliminate it. Military have also made the choice that they are ready to die for their cause, civilians are just living their lives.

No amount of civilian deaths is justified to prevent military deaths.

Yeah and if all countries surrendered their sovereignty to the UN there would be no more war, either. I suggest you ask some Canadian service members whether they chose to die when they signed up. Meanwhile, our enemies will happily kill every civilian they want to.

Russia can CLAIM what it wants.

Yes, which was exactly what I said:

Russia claimed they were, and used that as justification to invade.

Same as America used the supposed threat of Iraq WMD attacks as justification to invade.

Same as America used potential future deaths to justify dropping the bomb on civilians.

Objective reality is that Japan sunk a large part of the US Pacific fleet, killed 10,000 US and Filipinos, kill 9,000 Commonwealth troops in Singapore, and attempted to seize the entire region. And that was just the beginning.

Yes, I addressed that:

I objectively agree that the bomb stopped WWII, and prevented any other fighting.

Yeah and if all countries surrendered their sovereignty to the UN there would be no more war, either. I suggest you ask some Canadian service members whether they chose to die when they signed up.

That's what military is. You accept you may be ordered to die.

Meanwhile, our enemies will happily kill every civilian they want to.

Their military bear the same responsibility for the deaths they inflict.

I didn't narrow it down to a specific military. My comment covers all military:

They've chosen to kill for a reason. Just because you agree with the reason, doesn't remove moral culpability for killing someone. Remember, if all military refused to fight, there would be no more war. Just because that responsibility has been defused, does not eliminate it. Military have also made the choice that they are ready to die for their cause, civilians are just living their lives.

StrangerlandToday 08:03 am JST

Yeah and if all countries surrendered their sovereignty to the UN there would be no more war, either. I suggest you ask some Canadian service members whether they chose to die when they signed up.

That's what military is. You accept you may be ordered to die.

Modern militaries rarely order suicide missions. They might order you to do a rear guard action with a low chance of survival, but you know you are doing it for your buddies. Deciding to loose 200k troops in an invasion when they could have killed 200k civilians is not going to be looked upon kindly by troops or leadership. How exactly are they going to defend the area when they need to train 200k more troops and replace their equipment?

Meanwhile, our enemies will happily kill every civilian they want to.

Their military bear the same responsibility for the deaths they inflict.

I didn't narrow it down to a specific military. My comment covers all military:

And that is a wonderful pie-in-the-sky outlook. In the real world, Putin and Xi will expend their own citizens for their conquests, to say nothing of what they will and are doing to foreign civilians.

Modern militaries rarely order suicide missions.

But they can. That you may be ordered into one, is a risk you accept when you join the military.

Deciding to loose 200k troops in an invasion when they could have killed 200k civilians is not going to be looked upon kindly by troops or leadership.

Nevertheless, the civilians didn't sign up for anything other than existence. And even that they didn't really sign up for, though the absence of choice to end it implies they support he idea.

And that is a wonderful pie-in-the-sky outlook.

Oh, I never claimed it was plausible that all military would ever stop fighting. I don't see happening. I was pointing out that there is an implicit agreement among ALL military, of all sides, that they will kill. Therefore the responsibility for those killings is diffused between ALL military.

Civilians should never have to die for military goals. Ever. I will never agree that this is an acceptable price. Someone is always in the wrong when civilians die for military goals.

StrangerlandToday 07:40 am JST

Why would American lives be lost if they already had the solution to them not to be?

I don't consider military lives to be equal to civilian lives. Military have chosen to die, civilians have not.

It's also worth noting that that in the case of WW2, many US soldiers didn't have choose to be there either. Their choice was report for duty or go to jail. If your statement is that they should have all gone to jail to avoid being killed, I don't know what to tell you but running away is not always the best option.

StrangerlandToday 08:27 am JST

Oh, I never claimed it was plausible that all military would ever stop fighting. I don't see happening. I was pointing out that there is an implicit agreement among ALL military, of all sides, that they will kill. Therefore the responsibility for those killings is diffused between ALL military.

And the only way this statement makes sense is if you go on to say that the 4th Geneva Convention is a fig leaf that has been and will never be enforced. That I would agree with.

And the only way this statement makes sense is if you go on to say that the 4th Geneva Convention is a fig leaf that has been and will never be enforced. That I would agree with.

Huh? It's a theological discussion of morality, not one of law.

It's also worth noting that that in the case of WW2, many US soldiers didn't have choose to be there either. Their choice was report for duty or go to jail. If your statement is that they should have all gone to jail to avoid being killed

It's not. My statement is that if all armies had refused to participate, there wouldn't have been any war. Because they did, there was. Therefore, all military personnel bear some responsibility for the ensuing death. Just because you sign your right to decide over to some general, doesn't remove the moral culpability. It just, for some people, justifies it.

The civilians of Japan were the victims. It's a very strong card.

Yes, the victims of brutal Japanese government.

Military have chosen to die, civilians have not.

You do realize that the majority of the American military in WW2 was drafted, right? They didn’t “choose” anything

Yes, the victims of brutal Japanese government.

Yes, the Japanese government holds as much responsibility, if not more, than the Americans. If the Japanese government had not gone to war, Hiroshima would never have been bombed.

But it can also be said that if the Americans had not bombed Hiroshima, Hiroshima would not have been bombed.

You do realize that the majority of the American military in WW2 was drafted, right? They didn’t “choose” anything

They could have chosen to refuse to go to war.

And again, I'm not saying the shouldn't have - I'm a strong believer in the duty that the west did in WWII. But, once they agreed to go to war, they shoulder some of the responsibility for civilians who die. Such is the moral burden of the soldier.

My statement is that if all armies had refused to participate, there wouldn't have been any war. Because they did, there was. Therefore, all military personnel bear some responsibility for the ensuing death. 

Using this logic I could argue that it was the moral responsibility of the Japanese people to overthrow their war mongering government and because they didn’t they are morally culpable for the atrocities their government was committing and thus ultimately responsible for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Using this logic I could argue that it was the moral responsibility of the Japanese people to overthrow their war mongering government and because they didn’t they are morally culpable for the atrocities their government was committing and thus ultimately responsible for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

No, one is not morally responsible for decisions made by people out of their control. They are victims of it.

The Japanese government at the time was barely democratic, and extremely authoritarian.

But, once they agreed to go to war, they shoulder some of the responsibility for civilians who die.

No. The Japanese public’s refusal to overthrow their militaristic government means they shoulder the moral responsibility of the dead civilians, not the soldiers.

This has actually been one of the more interesting discussions I've had on this site. Thanks for the food for thought folks.

No, one is not morally responsible for decisions made by people out of their control. They are victims of it.

According to you they aren’t out of their control. You argued that war could be avoided if soldiers refused to fight, inferring that it’s the moral duty to resist the war machine. If civilians have enough agency to refuse to join the military to prevent war then they also have enough agency to overthrow their militaristic government to prevent war

You can’t in the same sentence argue the populace has enough agency to resist war by refusing to accept the draft and also argue the populace has no agency and is victim to the war machine

The Japanese government at the time was barely democratic, and extremely authoritarian.

And the wartime U.S. military wasn’t? Do you think they’d just smile and let you go about your day if you refused to be a cog in the military system

Atom bomb survivor hopes Japan debut of 'Oppenheimer' will stoke nuclear debate

The movie is a good reminder about the dangers of totalitarian regimes. And the necessity to use all the means in order to defeat those regimes.

The same moral can be applied to Israel's need to defeat the terrorists no matter what it takes.

The civilians of Japan were the victims. It's a very strong card.

Japan may have the nuclear victim card, but the US will always have the Pearl Harbor card to play against it. The lives of the soldiers and sailors in Hawaii were no less valuable or innocent than the civilians who died in the nuclear blasts.

the US is the only country to drop a super bomb (atom bomb, not a nuke, which was developed later) on another country.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a type of nuclear bomb

Atom bomb is nuclear !

Furthermore the USA isn't the only nation to drop atomic bombs that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and long-term illnesses

France , UK ,USSR

Think before you act is an ancient piece of wisdom. Human beings are blessed with a conscience. The voice of conscience helps individuals and groups to make a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, constructive or destructive. "There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts" - Mahatma Gandhi

they [nuclear weapons] were the least-worst outcome to the war that the United States was resolved to winning decisively.

Nah. They could have done a seige of Japan. They could basically do what ever they wanted.

Including killing a lot of Japanese - who would kamikaze their way into their firepower

Due to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor before there's a declaration of war, the US at the time had a special hatred for the Japanese (that they didn't against even Hitler and Mussolini)

Same old discussion every time. I thought the movie was a cut below so-so. The totally unecessary sex scene was memorable.