national

Thousands sign Hiroshima petition to save A-bomb buildings

18 Comments

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

© 2019 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


18 Comments
Login to comment

It is important to have such anti-war symbols . . . for posterity . . . .

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If the people who signed the petitions all donated money as well there would be no problem.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Hello Kitty 321, on the nail.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'd rather they remembered the non-Japanese who suffered from the A-bomb. These include a large number of Koreans, who were denied A-bomb sufferer status under the bigoted Japanese government.

Let these rotten buildings fall apart. They are not worth the money.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Germany shows that the best way of peace is to remember the mistakes.

But not only Germany! Many people forget that Italy was also one of the major members in the axis.

And Italy has one of the most beautiful constitution in the world because it was written by anti-fascists.

Keep these buildings is important but also remember the suffer that the axis brought before is also very important.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes they are important, but you cant save everything. The city itself serves as a very powerful anti war symbol, so its not like they are the only reminders of the bombing.

I'm not against them being saved, and if they are, then great! 

I'm just saying that, you cant keep something just because it was there at the time. And if its unsafe, is it a suitable use of public funds? Especially as there are other more stable buildings in the area that also survived!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

A black eye born from belligerence. A tool the Japanese use to appeal for sympathy and propagate victim hood. Be gone !!!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

At least 140,000 people died after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, with another 74,000 killed after a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki three days later.

...to end Imperial Japan's war of aggression . There, fixed it for ya. Otherwise it doesn't give the reason why

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If America wants to move it in their country as a reminder never to use Nuclear Weapons again Yes.

Japan doesn't have Nukes, doesn't plan to build any, doesn't support Nukes, wants them banned worldwide!

Focus your energy on a country with Nukes your talking about a country who has 0 Nukes.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In most of the countries we save historical constructions regardless of A-bombing or not.

In Japan and Asia in general there is not such a thing.

Not sure if this is a cultural thing or because of more powerful greedy developers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan has weapons grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium. They certainly have the capability to make “nukes.”

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Preserving and strengthening all three buildings owned by the local government would cost 8.4 billion yen ($77 million), they estimate.

They propose to demolish two of the buildings and strengthen the remaining one they own, at a lower estimated cost of between 1.4 and 3.1 billion yen.

That should settle it. They their atomic dome for the yearly antinuclear stuff, that is enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Japan has no nuclear weapons. However, Japan is most likely just a few screwdriver turns from assembling them from nuclear weapon parts lying in close formation.

I support keeping the building, an icon for the future to recall the horror of killing so many people during a time the world had gone mad, testing the lethality of a new weapon on so many old men, women and children so rings of death from the epicenter could be analyzed.

After getting reports of the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Truman wrote in his diary that he was not going be responsible for killing more women and children and halted the use of newly assembled bombs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Open minded:

In most of the countries we save historical constructions regardless of A-bombing or not.

So how much historical value is there in some old uniform factory?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a tough call. I want to say, yes they should be preserved, but that cost is pretty high to keep a few old buildings standing. The most important building, the dome, is preserved. You can't always keep every memory.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan remains the only country to have been attacked with atomic weapons -- with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, days ahead of the country's surrender on August 15, 1945 to end World War II.

I think that there is something wrong with this sentence. It was Japan doing all the attacking and committing atrocities at that time, and inna state of war. The allies put a stop to it.

As for the buildings in question, well I agree with the above comment that if all thoses who signed the petition are willing to pay for it , then go ahead.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You don't conserve something because of money! Much less surviving history from a seminal moment in the history of the world like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

It's hard to comprehend some of the comments here, totally devoid of humanity.

There are stories upon stories to be told in these buildings. The fact they survived is a blessing to the world, not just Japan.

We conserve things because past, present and future all hold significance to humanity. I suspects the only reason why demolition is contemplated is because of money, ie developers are eyeing it. Sell out your humanity at your own and the world's peril.

Take a look at the ICOMOS web sites and read some of the charters, these buikdings should romp it in for conservation.

https://www.icomos.org/en

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan remains the only country to have been attacked with atomic weapons -- with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, days ahead of the country's surrender on August 15, 1945 to end World War II.

Don't want Hiroshima? Don't start Pearl Harbor. WWII was devastating to much of the world. 80+ million died between 1937 and 1945. Why? Because some nations chose to invade their neighbors in order to gain more raw materials. Raw materials that were needed to increase their ability to invade even more of their neighbors. The madness had to be stopped. Was there a better option? How long should the war have continued? One year? Two years? Three? How many more would have died? Ending the war as quickly as possible saved lives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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