Halwick comments

Radical or moderate?

Biden's record can be considered a "moderate" Democrat whereas Harris' record is more "radical" in comparison.

Biden and Harris will run as "moderates" and try to convince the American people they are moderates. But.....

Look at who backs Biden and Harris. Most leftist and radical groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

The Democrat Party Platform is the most radical platform ever proposed in American political history.

And you can assured that the Biden Administration is going to be the most radical ever.

Another reason Biden picked Harris:

Harris, coming from California, will guarantee Biden will get the "winner-takes-all" electoral votes in the election.

Harris is literally the worst choice among all the non-white women Biden had limited his VP choices to. Stacey Abrams would be better.

Stacey Abrams is more "black" than Kamala Harris and would have been a better representatation of Black Americans than Harris. Harris is Jamaican/East Indian....but close enough for government work, as they say.

Biden picked the "safest" and "whitest" Black woman who would satisfy the demands of the Black voters and at the same time not totally alienate the White voters.

Harris is a strong will, ruthless and ambitious politician. She will be the real Boss in the Biden-Harris administration.

So the corals around Okinawa are not in any danger of extinction but will flourish under global warming? That must be very unsettling to the pro-environmental folks. Get rid of global warming and the precious Okinawan corals will die.

It's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Republicans, to attack or criticize or voice opposition to Harris on her record or positions on the issues without immediately being accused of racism and sexism.

You know the Democrats wouldn't hesitate to play those cards. At the same time, they'll sling all the mud they can dig up and the media will look the other way.

1glenn, well stated and I agree wholeheartedly.

It is the existence of nuclear weapons coupled with the fear of their destructive power that has actually encouraged peaceful coexistence between nations capable of waging major warfare.....a precarious and fear based peace, but peace nevertheless.

If we are successful in abolishing nuclear weapons (including biological and chemical), we'll go right back to the times (pre-1945) when conventional weapons made major all out total wars thinkable once again.

@pug boy!,

That was very nice. we should ban ALL types of man-made weapons of monstrosities (not just nuclear, but also conventional, biological, chemical and anything else that can be used as weapons).

But first we have to abolish the conflicts of interests and prejudice that are really the root cause of war.

Idealistic but not realistically attainable, unfortunately.

voiceofokinawa,

I said it was nothing but shenanigans to try to justify the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying it was to end the war rather quickly.

Okay.....So what you are really saying is that the original plan of invasion would NOT be shenanigans (to use your phrase), even though it would have resulted in prolong the war, millions of civilian casualties and dividing the country in the aftermath. This is what you prefer?

Just trying to understand why you would prefer that kind of outcome to justify avoiding the use of the atomic bomb when it prevented it from happening in the first place.

There's another theory that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to flaunt them to Joseph Stalin in anticipation of the coming Cold War after World War Two. If so, to say it was necessary to quickly end the war is nothing but shenanigans.

How can you reach the conclusion that ending the war is nothing but shenanigans? Are you implying that it would have been better to prolong the war?

The Potsdam Conference allowed the Soviet Union to enter the Pacific War three months after the surrender of Germany. That would put the Soviet entry circa August 1945.

Truman and advisors saw the problems Stalin was causing in divided Germany and the potential for future conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Truman did not want a divided postwar Japan with the same problems.

So the war had to be ended BEFORE the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and landed on Japanese soil and occupied the Northern half of Japan.

Given the already growing adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Soviet Union in Germany, what do you suppose would happen when the American invasion forces met and clashed with the Soviet forces already on Japanese soil since August 1945?

Planet has been kind to mankind. It is an invitation for mankind to be kind to the Planet. Hence kill not, nor destroy our common home, may have to be our humble way of proceeding.

Dr.Cajetan CoelhoT,

I admire the words.

But realistically speaking, the seeds of war, as manifested in conflicts of interest, are everywhere and will not be abolished by pious platitudes.

When we are able to abolish conflicts of interest, whether are rooted in political ideology, economic, religious and personal prejudice, then there can be hope for world peace.

Voiceofokinawa,

Quit looking at the events with today's 2020 hindsight morality and political correctness, and look at it with the perspective of the period. THERE WAS A WAR BEING FOUGHT AT THAT TIME. If a new type of weapon was available and its potential was promising, it would immediately be used against the enemy.

At that time, I repeat, AT THAT TIME, the U.S. military viewed the atomic bomb as a new type of tactical weapon to be used in the same manner as conventional bombs were used. The difference being the atomic bomb was considerably more powerful.

One B-29, carrying one atomic bomb with the explosive yield equivalence of 15,000 tons of TNT could do the work of 2,500 B-29s each carrying 12,000 lb bomb payload. That made it a very efficient weapon.

Another thing: military planners and tacticians AT THAT TIME, did not understand the atomic bomb's radiation effects, nor did they take it into account in their usage. They believed it could be deployed just like a regular conventional bomb.

Had the Japanese been able to develop the atomic bomb and able to produce them, they would have used them as a tactical weapon against the American invasion forces. Since they didn't have a bomber capable of carrying the bomb, they would load it on the Shinyo kamikaze motor boats and sent it out toward the incoming American fleet as they approached the Kyushu beaches.

I’m a foreigner and when I went there I was physically removed for taking a photo. I got the impression that Europeans are not really welcome there.

I don't think you were removed because you are a foreigner and a European.

You were removed because you attempted to take a photo per your admission. Many (not all) shrines and temples forbid photo taking. What's wrong with respectfully complying with the posted rules out of courtesy?

And I mean really, I would have thought capitalism would have taken care of this by now.

@Vanessa, why do you have to put a "imflammatory-political-correct-anti-capitalism/anti-imperialist-anti-corporate" spin on everything? What kind of political axe do you feel you have a need to grind?

The article is simply a health ministry statistical report on the declining Japanese male smoking habit. No need to politicize it.

sensei258Today  09:30 am JST

the moment the B-29 bomber Bockscar

Should be boxcar, like part of a train

Well, if you want to get technical about it, it's actually the Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber.

The bomber's moniker name "Bockscar" is correct, orginally assigned to pilot Captain Frederick C. Bock. But for some reason, Bock did not fly his plane on the 9 August mission. Major Charles W. Sweeney flew the "Bockscar" instead.

voiceofokinawaAug. 9  10:36 pm JST

U.S. intelligence must have known Japan could no longer continue to fight despite each citizen's high morale. In fact, the U.S. occupation forces were surprised, when they were stationed in Japan, to find there was indeed nothing left.

That's not quite true. Yes, Japan was finished as a warfighting nation, BUT.......

After the Battle of Okinawa, Japan pulled back its remaining military forces and deployed them to Kyushu for the anticipated 1 November 1945 American invasion. Japan still had available some 10,000 airplanes available for Kamikaze attacks, and four million soldiers plus civilian population ready to fight the American invasion.

This was Operation Ketsu-Go.

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

When the U.S. military planners were planning Operation Olympic, the data on Japanese military strength was initially based on data collected in April 1945, which proved to be inaccurate.

By July 1945, U.S. intelligence realized they had underestimated Japanese military strength on southern Kyushu where the American invasion forces were going to land and that the Japanese defense force actually outnumbered the planned American forces.

By 1 August 1945, almost all Japanese forces to defend Kyushu were in place.

U.S. intelligence also underestimated the effectiveness of Kamikazi attacks defending Kyushu. Japan still had Shinyo suicide motor boats and midget submarines in reserve.

If Operation Olympic had been executed as planned, it would have been the largest bloodbath for both American and Japanese forces and civilian casualties.

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm

Good luck getting the J... Israelis to follow a ban. Dirtiest people on the planet. They won't even admit they have a nuclear program.

Well, when you're surrounded by enemies, you need a deterrent from attack. And nuclear weapons have proven effective to be that deterrent. The Middle East knows Israel has nuclear weapons and that's why nobody has dared launched a full scale attack against Israel since 1973.

But yes, you're right, Israel won't admit they have nuclear weapons and the U.S. turns a blind eye to their Dimona nuclear facilities. Israel gets away with a lot of things. And they're good at playing the victim card to justify their actions.

Why was there an embargo? (for above)

Japan invaded China in 1937. FDR warned Japan to cease hostilities against China. Japan ignored FDR's warning so FDR imposed an embargo and froze Japan's assets.

People often overlook that initial event (Japan invading China) that led to the sanctions and instead blame the U.S. for starting the Pacific War..

Ban ALL nuclear weapons for the future of humanity.

Then the world resorts to conditions prior to 1945 when World Wars fought with conventional weapons are thinkable once again?

@voiceofokinawaToday  04:50 pm JST

But it was the U.S. that actually dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so in my mind there was only the U.S.

You deliberately ignore the fact that there was a war going on at the time. It just so happened the U.S. was the only one that had it at the time and used it as wartime circumstances dictated.

Any country that had the atomic bomb at that time and under war conditions would have used it. Do you deny that? If the Soviet Union had the atomic bomb in April 1945, Stalin would certainly have used it against Germany.

You cite the fact that the U.S. has never used nuclear weapons in the past 75 years as an indication that the U.S. is committed to never repeat the same mistake. That means you regret the mistake the U.S. made in 1945 by dropping nuclear weapons on the two cities. But is your regret over a moral mistake or about a military, strategic one?

You are playing with semantics and making non sequitur inferences as you are famous for doing.

There is nothing to regret, nor is it an admission of mistake that the U.S. used the atomic bomb under the circumstances and conditions at that time, which was wartime. The fact is, nuclear weapons (whether you want to admit or not) was a major contributing factor in ending that World War and that's the way it happened. Nuclear weapons for the past 75 years, as a deterrent, continues to be a major factor in preventing future major world wars from being waged again.

Wars will continue to be waged with conventional weapons and by its very nature will use the most destructive available, short of nuclear, of course. But nuclear weapons are now viewed as a weapon "of last resort". During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel almost resorted to using nuclear weapons. They had available 13 Jericho intermediate range missiles armed with nuclear warheads to be used had the war gone badly for them as it almost did.

"The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted without taking into consideration the reality of the harsh national security environment," Abe said at a news conference

That's very true.

Has Mayor Tomihisa Taue and the nuclear abolishment community forgotten North Korea's threats, i.e, "to use nuclear weapons to “sink” Japan and reduce the United States to 'ashes and darkness'"?

Have hey forgotten who backs North Korea and the fact that they have nuclear weapons?

In addition to the U.S. and Japan, and U.K., why hasn't China, North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, signed the Treaty? Without their signature, the Treaty is useless, toothless, meaningless and impotent .

 agree Nagasaki would have been totally unnecessary if the IJA had followed the unconditional surrender demanded by the allies, unfortunately they didn't listen unlike after the fact and they surrendered unconditionally

Incorrect. Japan DID NOT surrender unconditionally. Japan's condition that the Emperor could not be held accountable and was not to be dethroned or prosecuted was accepted by the allies. Japan's surrender was conditional.

Not quite correct either.  Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war.

After the war, Emperor Hirohito did present himself to General MacArthur, then Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, to accept responsibility for the war. General MacArthur understood the Emperor would be the most important person to help transform Japan from a militarist nation to a democratic nation, and allowed Hirohito to continue as Emperor, absolving him from being prosecuted as a war criminal.

Truman was a bigot. Bigots aren't known for their adherence to the principles of honesty.

He was a Southerner and his views were typical of Southerners in those times. Goes with the territory, man.

But let's not forget that he desegregated the military and honored the 442 Japanese-American Infantry Regiment in a ceremony at the White House after the war. A true bigot and racist wouldn't have done those things.

Don't forget that in Truman's first public announcement after the Hiroshima bomb, he lied and told the American public that Hiroshima was "an important army base" rather than an entire city. Why do you think he lied?

What do you mean, "lied"? Of course Hiroshima was an important (Japanese) army base, i.e.,

During World War II, the Second General Army and Chūgoku Regional Army was headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping. (source: Wikipedia)

The Second General Army and Chūgoku Regional Army were both responsible for civil defense, anti-aircraft defenses, and for organizing guerilla warfare cells in anticipation of the projected Allied invasion. Its primary mission was to ensure the security of southern Kyūshū. (source: Wikipedia)

As for Nagasaki,

*Nagasaki was an important industrial city, containing both plants of the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, the Akunoura Engine Works, Mitsubishi Arms Plant, Mitsubishi Electric Shipyards, Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, several other small factories, and most of the ports storage and trans-shipment facilities, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry. These connections with the Japanese war effort made Nagasaki a major target for strategic bombing by the Allies during the war. (source: Wikipedia)*

In any city where there is are military bases and defense factories, you'll find civilian population. Again, civilian casualties are inevitable and unavoidable in war; that's a fact.

If Japan had developed nuclear weapons first, it must have used them on Americans, no doubt

@voice, I'm glad you acknowledged that fact.

Now, the epitaph at Hiroshima Memorial Park reads: "Rest in peace, souls. We'll never repeat the same mistake." I hope this sublime vow is also shared by Americans and will keep lasting forever.

The fact that the U.S. have NEVER used nuclear weapons during the past 75 years indicates they are committed to that goal.

Why didn't you include Russia, China and North Korea in your last sentence? Do you not hope they too will share in keeping lasting peace? Or are they exempt?

FYI: it was Russia (formerly Soviet Union) who invented and detonated the largest thermonuclear bomb ever: The TSAR Bomba, a 58 megatonne hydrogen bomb that surpassed anything the U.S. ever developed.

I imagine this was a demonstration of "peaceful intentions"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

There was absolutely no reason to drop either bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Any line of reasoning to the contrary is a justification and intended to give shelter to the guilty. It was a war crime.

The pacifists here ignores the fact that there was a WAR going on and during any war civilian casualties are inevitable and unavoidable. This is fact.

You also ignore the fact that during wartime, nations will use whatever weapons are available to defeat the enemy.  During wartime, the end results justifies the means.  That's the reality of war.

Another fact is is people will do things in war that they would never do in peacetime. How do you reconcile the Japanese soldiers' brutal criminal actions during World War II, yet during postwar peacetime, these same people as civilians after the war became the greatest peace advocates on Earth?

Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the B-29 Enola Gay, has said that many retired Japanese servicemen told him he did the right thing. Those include Mitsuo Fuchida, the man who led the attack on Pearl Harbor. He and Tibbets met at a gathering of military veterans several years after the war.

“We talked for 30 to 40 minutes, and he said, ‘You did exactly the right thing because Japan would’ve resisted an invasion using every man, woman and child, using sticks and stones if necessary.’ That would have been an awful slaughter.”

Did you mean to say the Japanese should be grateful for the two atomic bombs otherwise it would have been worse?

Again, you don't understand the alternative result had the U.S. opted not to use the atomic bomb.

Read up on the Japanese "Operation Ketsu-Go" and see what the Japanese military was preparing and the losses they were willing to accept.

Postwar Japan came to realize that Hiroshima and Nagasaki losses were a "lesser of two evils", when you consider the alternative of an invasion, hundred million civilian casualties and a divided postwar Japan.

Would YOU prefer that outcome?

I'm surprised the drivers' union and tour industry aren't protesting against self-driving vehicles, being they will put drivers out of work.

On the other hand, maybe the tour industry sees greater profit with self-driving vehicles since they don't have to pay for wages.

Until ties between heavy industry and governments Are severed war and death will sadly always be a cash cow for the real owners of the world..

No, heavy industry is not the cause of war. The seeds of war are everywhere and rooted in conflicts of interest, i.e., political ideology, religion, economic, racial, etc. and the failure to resolve the disagreements or reach a peaceful coexistence.

When you can eliminate the conflicts of interest, then there is hope for peace.

And to flex its muscles to the Soviets. It was two powers fighting over Japan which would have ended up like the Korean Peninsula.

That was a secondary reason the atomic bombs were used: First, hasten the Japanese surrender BEFORE the Soviet could invade Hokkaido; and secondly to keep the Soviets out of Japan to prevent it from becoming like postwar Germany and the Korean Peninsula.

So....for those who say the U.S. shouldn't have used the atomic bombs, is the alternative homeland invasion with millions of military and civilian casualties (See Operation Ketsu-Go), the war prolonged and a divided postwar Japan with North Japan being ruled by a DPRK-like government the PREFERABLE ending?

The revisionists fail to consider or deliberately ignore that alternative postwar alternative scenario in their debates.