A-bomb survivor says Kishida's nuclear speech avoided 'honest debate'

"He said he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, but how can we expect that as long as Japan is in alignment with the United States?" she asked, referring to the fact that Japan relies on U.S. nuclear deterrence for protection.

Amazing how an actual atomic bomb survivor, not a grandstanding LDP parasite who happens to siphon money from Hiroshima, can demolish Kishida's empty rhetoric with one sentence.

Unpopular Opinion Alert!

Setsuko, You have my sympathies and in spite of what comes out of my keyboard next, I share not only your desire for a nuclear-free world, but also the strong opinion that atomic weapons should never be used again.

But if we want honest debate, then let's have honest debate.

In the Summer of 1945, the plan of the Japanese High Command was to sacrifice the entire population of Japan if necessary and and refight the battle of Okinawa on a much larger scale. The idea was to cause so many casualties on the Allied side that they would agree to peace terms agreeable to the military clique. It would have resulted in millions of Allied casualties and Japanese deaths running into the tens of millions.

As horrible as the bombings were, they ended the war with many fewer Japanese and American lives lost - several orders of magnitude few lives lost.

Even if the United States had not invaded but just cut off Japan, the mass starvation in the winter of 1945 (according to "Downfall" the United States fed 15 million people in Japan who presumably would have starved) would have again resulted in death many orders of magnitude higher than the bombings.

I say this as someone who has visited both peace parks multiple times.

Furthermore, as horrible as it sounds and as close to disaster as we have come, nuclear weapons have prevented war among the great powers for more than 75 years now. At no time in human history that I am aware of, have world powers gone so long without clashing.

Finally, the sad news is that eliminating nuclear weapons will not end war, so no power will give them up. Sadly, Ukraine is an example of what happens when a country willingly unilaterally gives up the ultimate weapon. So the problem is not the weapon, but the nature of the governments.

If you really want a world free of nuclear weapons, work for Democracy. Not the pseudo-Russian kind. Perhaps not the US kind. But real representative government where people get to choose who leads them and those leaders are accountable. Because when citizens have a representative form of government, they are much less likely to go to war with each other. Then and only then, can the world begin to denuclearize.

And since that is as likely to happen as I am to become a space shuttle captain anytime soon, the best we can hope for is to limit these weapons to the states that have them.

That is honest debate and I am not happy to have to say it either.

Setsuko is correct, she just forgot that mr KISHIDA is a US Puppet.

What would she prefer: alignment with China? North Korea? India? France? Oh, wait…New Zealand! Jacinda will keep the wolf from the door!

"WASUREINAI!" Go to Heiwa Koen in Hiroshima. Go to the the north end and sound the Peace Bell and listen to its mournful tone as you continue on to the 'T' bridge and look up about 1500 feet above the NTT building on Densha Doori and imagine a THERMONUCLEAR SUN being born there and instantly evaporating EVERYTHING within a mile in radius and burning and destroying well beyond that. And that was a tiny bomb compared to what is in inventory and ready to deploy by Humanity against Humanity now. However hard Mr. Kishida may try, Japan is a militarily OCCUPIED COUNTRY and has little choice in what it might prefer to be on the world stage.

Japan's greatest defense, if it were only possible, would be to ask the U.S. to leave and to declare ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY and nonaggression. Switzerland has done well with that in the midst of tribes that have known little else but war for well over the last 500 years. But the pathology of the Samurai still lives in the deep roots of Japanese aristocracy and is fed by the Greed fueled pathology of its 'ally' (see: master), and no one around Japan can, at this time, trust a 'nonaggressive' Japan, least of all the Japanese who will die should push come to shove as it soon might. Mr. Kishida cannot, by himself, save Japan. Perhaps those who learn from Setsuko Thurlow can but the memories fade with the generations and the history lies unstudied and shunned by the powerful who benefit from Death as they have since well before history could be recorded for us to ignore.

@Nemo,

Bravo.

You have nailed it,

My thoughts entirely.

In addition,if the USA hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,and thus ending the war,then the Russians would have attacked Japan from the north resulting in Japan becoming annexed like Germany was.

Your comments are so right.

Perhaps she should be convincing the communist neighbors next to Japan?

If china or n.korea didn't exist, THEN Japan can safely say they don't need nuclear weapons or the US for protection.

@ William:

Switzerland has done well with that in the midst of tribes that have known little else but war for well over the last 500 years

500 years ago there were no nuclear missiles. And nobody is interested in conquering Switzerland. Esp since much chinazi black money is in swiss bank accounts.

@ William

However hard Mr. Kishida may try, Japan is a militarily OCCUPIED COUNTRY and has little choice in what it might prefer to be on the world stage.

Better to be "occupied" by the US then to be under the chinazis, russians or n.koreans.

Japan's greatest defense, if it were only possible, would be to ask the U.S. to leave and to declare ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY and nonaggression.

Are you really this naive? THAT'S your idea of "greatest defense"?

So, if you and your wife & daughter are walking along, and some mugger pulls out a knife and holds it at your wife/daughter's throat, your "best defense" is to leave and then declare to your wife/daughter and the muggers ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY and nonaggression? You will not defend them?

In case you forget, nuclear defense , isn't just about political showmanship; it's about defending your family from world class muggers like the chinazi CCP, russians and n.koreans.

If Korea, China, or Japan dare to use a nuclear weapon they will be bombed back by USA and EU.

Use other underdeveloped countries as excuse to keep on with nuclear weapons is childish.

You'll never grow if you set N.Korea and China as the example to follow.

These we're test run,the US had 12 more powerful bombs to drop

Nemo, Ukrainain corruption would of tried too sell the bomb,you must be a Ukrainain lobbyist,be honest with everyone

Furthermore, as horrible as it sounds and as close to disaster as we have come, nuclear weapons have prevented war among the great powers for more than 75 years now. At no time in human history that I am aware of, have world powers gone so long without clashing.

Your comment seems overall well-informed. However, this is quite misleading. The powers have been at war in proxy wars ever since WW2. The fact that it's mostly not citizens of the respective countries who suffer doesn't make it any better.

Perhaps for the "honest discussion" we should point out that nuclear weapons are a fantastic deterrent against a stronger regular force. That is why Russia will never give up its nukes before NATO, North Korea and China will never give theirs up before the US.

Modern Japan owes its existence and security status due to nuclear weapons. The Japanese government doesn’t want to abandon the US nuclear umbrella and the thousands of nukes stored on US bases and submarines. Japan gives no Sh*t for atomic survivors

"He said he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, but how can we expect that as long as Japan is in alignment with the United States?" she asked, referring to the fact that Japan relies on U.S. nuclear deterrence for protection.

It was the United States' fault it was initially attacked by Japan, and to save lives had to end the war with a powerful weapon?

Thurlow, a 90-year-old peace advocate living in Canada,

Don't know how long she has lived in Canada, but someone should inform her about the alignment between Canada and the US via NATO.

How can there be a nuclear free world when nuclear power plants which supply the required explosive component abound in Japan? Japan has enough plutonium to make around 6000 warheads…Nuclear free world?

Thurlow, a 90-year-old peace advocate living in Canada

I would think she would want to bring more attention to other foreigners who were killed or injured during the bombing of Hiroshima.

Being realistic, Japan has no option due to its highly armed neighbors. US has the obligation to protect Japan against external threats, for sure it is better not to depend on third parts as politicians change along the years and the timing for prompt action demands fractions of seconds. Why did Harry Truman decide to use a second nuclear bomb less than 3 days after Hiroshima? The guilty of this wrong decision has made the US to finance the rebuild of Japan through Marshall Plan. It is utopic, but let's imagine how the world would be a better place if there is a general truce and all the money used in weapons be used to fight poverty, eliminate hunger in the world.

Makato,Truman drop the bomb on Japan, because they felt Japan ,lesser of two evil,if anyone deserves it ,it was Germany ,the US has it first obligation not too Japan ,but too America

As horrible as the bombings were, they ended the war with many fewer Japanese and American lives lost - several orders of magnitude few lives lost....

Finally, the sad news is that eliminating nuclear weapons will not end war, so no power will give them up. Sadly, Ukraine is an example of what happens when a country willingly unilaterally gives up the ultimate weapon. So the problem is not the weapon, but the nature of the governments.

I'm confused. Are you advocating japan should have had nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent to keep the US and Japan from even going to war in the 1940s, or are you advocating that Russia, China, US, Iran, Israel(?), UK, etc should (have) use(d) their nukes to save lives and create world peace?

EDIT: that reply was meant for Nemo. Everyone else is welcome to respond though.

GuyGene

Today 05:27 pm JST 

What would she prefer: alignment with China? North Korea? India? France? Oh, wait…New Zealand! Jacinda will keep the wolf from the door!

Well, New Zealand is a non-nuclear country. Wouldn't even let US nuclear vessels dock. Led to uproar in the 80s, iirc. New Zealand will create a Kiwi umbrella. Further, they will deploy all the resources from middle earth.

William Bjornson

Today 05:38 pm JST 

THERMONUCLEAR SUN being born there and instantly evaporating EVERYTHING within a mile in radius and burning and destroying well beyond that.

Well, a fission star, not a true fusion star. Wouldn't want to wake up to that though.

Japan's greatest defense, if it were only possible, would be to ask the U.S. to leave and to declare ABSOLUTE NEUTRALITY and nonaggression. Switzerland has done well with that in the midst of tribes that have known little else but war for well over the last 500 years

What keeps Switzerland neutral are many factors. The first being that European powers have agreed that they are neutral and have cassus belli to invade the invader if the invader seeks to invade. Neutrality was to prevent the great euro powers at the time from expanding. Napoleon did invade in the early 19th century and conquered. After napoleon was defeated, the swiss were liberated and eventually formed a full federation in 1868 (previously had been a confederation except during the Napoleonic era). Secondly, everyone and their mum is packing and all men (yes, s-xist) are drafted at age 18. While not as crazy as the us, they are armed. Japan would have to allow all citizens pistols and rifles, provide armouries to store ammo, and to reinstate the draft (which would be difficult considering the whole pacifist constitution and ww2 memories). Thirdly, Switzerland is b-oby trapped. Bridges are set for detonation and such if anyone invades. While some have been deactivated, it is still a national strategy. The only entry into Japan is by sea or air. They are harder to bo-by trap.

@William

Switzerland

I agree that Switzerland is a good role model for Japan

@spitfire

The Russians would've attacked Japan

Don't you mean to say the Soviet Union ?

And in response to your comment saying the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary and justifiable is purely sickening and vile.

I completely disagree the bombings were necessary.

And yes iam totally aware of all the hideous gruesome atrocities that the JIA committed.

The USA and its allies should have obliterated the Japanese imperial army and not innocent Japanese civilians !

Makoto Shimizu

Today 08:36 pm JST 

...The guilty of this wrong decision has made the US to finance the rebuild of Japan through Marshall Plan.

There was no guilt on the part of the decision makers. Partly due to racism and propaganda depicting Japanese as inhuman, mostly due to what many Americans still see as a necessity to end the war. The Marshall Plan was a European rebuilding scheme, not a Japanese one. Further, it was not guilt that started either, but to prevent the spread of communism (another reason the Japanese were able to keep the emperor).

It is utopic, but let's imagine how the world would be a better place if there is a general truce and all the money used in weapons be used to fight poverty, eliminate hunger in the world.

Utopia would be a world where money isn't needed at all in a post-scarcity world where automation is near 100% and people can do their hobbies which could be considered work by others for no monetary gain. People want to open restaurants because they like cooking and want people to try their food; people run the govt because they want to make a democratic change and not because the want to make money directly (pay and pension) or indirectly (corruption, insider trading, and lobbying—hard to do since money doesn't exist in this utopia).

@makoto

Why did Harry Truman decide to use a second nuclear bomb

Because Japan refused to surrender after the first bombing.

Why you don't know that ?

Being realistic Japan has no option due to its highly armed neighbors

No No No Makoto ! Realistically Japan doesn't need nuclear weapons because of the security agreement with the USA. However obviously Japan doesn't trust the USA is capable or reliable .

There's always options

Japan has a hidden agenda.

And i know for a fact the USA military doesn't fully trust Japan either because its blatantly obvious there's a grudge of the atomic bombings.

Rediculous argument. Japan with no nukes. Victim of atomic bombs. Never tested one, is not trying to get one, is the last country you should talk to about banning Nuclear Weapons.

Dear A-bomb survivor,

1.Japan never used nuclear weapons.

2.Japan understands more then any other country how horrible this weapons can be.

Doesnt matter what Kishida said!! It doesnt matter!! America, Russia, China and many others, have their own plans and ideas, and dont give a FK about what Japan has to say on such issues, they will never give up their Nukes!! Never! Especially not because Japan said so!

juminRheeToday  09:36 pm JST

Don't know if that's sarcasm, but the US did sanction Japan, preventing oil shipments. Japan retaliated. And yes, the sanctions were because of the warmongering of Japan, but just providing historical context. If anyone wants to add history before the sanctions, please do.

Of course sarcasm. And everyone knows about the sanctions.

What is the argument though?

I'm confused. Are you advocating japan should have had nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent to keep the US and Japan from even going to war in the 1940s, or are you advocating that Russia, China, US, Iran, Israel(?), UK, etc should (have) use(d) their nukes to save lives and create world peace?

Well, I’m sure as hell not writing the answer again even though it was a direct response to a question. Topical, accurate and only the slightest bit snarky at the very end

So long but highly informative story short - No, that’s not what I’m advocating. No, it’s not remotely analogous.

What did not kill Setsuko,has made her stronger, anybody that survived a nuclear blast like Setsuko is somebody to listen too,of course she has been under western influence for decades,lots of Japanese lose their inhibitions and become outspoken,lots of Japanese should follow in her footsteps

BTW if the lady in the photo is 90 years old, maybe the radiation is keeping her young?

She's correct that Kishida makes announcements that have no plan and are double standards and hypocritical

@ Kipling

Yes rather radiant isn't she

Mr. Kishida has NO Intentions to care anything about the atomic bomb survivor, he is interested to use the nuclear weapon issue to promote his own popularity. You know he is not popular always!

With no disrespect to the A-Bomb Survivors, calling upon Nations to ban and ditch their Nuclear Weapons is simply a lost cause. Each in theory, having Nuclear Weapons acts as a deterrent against another Nation invading them... however the Wildcard, is with Terrorist Organizations, who don't have any cares towards one Nation or another, so their getting ahold of such Weaponry is actually where the real concern should be focused. North Korea/China/Russia I doubt are insane enough to launch a Nuclear attack upon another Country, however, I am concerned about Iran, with it's ties to radical religious groups - and may provide them with the means of, say attacking Israel with a Nuclear Device - Dirty or otherwise. THIS is where the biggest threat is.