Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing taught us nothing

[hero of the day]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing taught us nothing. But now we have chance to change something, the fact is that Us Navy is going to deploy nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier Nimitz-class at Yokosuka and we must stop it! Moreover because of the threat of war between USA and China it is quite a reality. Eh, IMHO Americans’ position in respect to Japan is very cynical and criminal even. I don’t want to see my nation bow to US ambitions. I think that they could make us hostages of their ambitions!

[Jack]

War? whos at war? Japan will never bow to another country its to strong now.

Can i ask if you've been on this forum before as a different member?

[senseiman]

Yeah, this guy's post does look suspiciously similar to the one yesterday about Japan being held hostage by "insufferable Yankees" or words to that effect.

[lexico]

War? whos at war? Japan will never bow to another country its to strong now.I believe he said "threat of war," not "war." There's a difference.Can i ask if you've been on this forum before as a different member ?I don't know who you are implying ? It can never be McTojo. (S)he shares some ideas with one member who's post I find similar, but the caution (s)he presents appears to be quite healthy, I believe. ;-)

[nice gaijin]

I agree there, this person's worries, misguided or not, are in the interest of Japan. McTojo is only misguided; I'm not sure whose interests he has in mind.

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

Is it any problem that carrier Nimitz is deployed in Yokosuka? :?
Now Kitty Hawk is deployed in Yokosuka :souka:

What relation to the atomic bomb and nuclear aircraft carrier of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is there?
:?

[lexico]

Perhaps the fact that both use uranium as a source of power ?

Slow fission for power generation is a non-violent use of atomic energy, but to use that in an atomic submarine or giant aircraft carrier is again, and ultimately, military use. (perhaps this is what heroshema-of-the-day thinks ?)... and weapons and military equipment are eventually meant for war.

I think that hero-she-ma-of-the-day might be a firm believer of

1) anti-war principle, and
2) anti-nuclear principle

If this is true, then to have two violations on one Nimits could only alarm him/her.

Did I read you correctly, hero-of-the-day ? Please articulate your ideas, so that people can understand you better. Then we might have an engaging discussion. :)

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I think Japan has every right to be ancy about US troops on their soil, hell I would be too. What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is unforgivable and makes me sick everytime I think about it. We can't say that having lasting scars is wrong, it's natural. But Japan has been amazingly forgiving to the US but does the US care? No. With the President that we have currently if I was living in Japan I'd be worried too. The US needs to butt out of other nation's business, it's not our nation so why the hell are we even there? 'Cause we're stupid and controlling.
I hate America.
I want to move to Japan.

[4321go]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing taught us nothing. But now we have chance to change something, the fact is that Us Navy is going to deploy nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier Nimitz-class at Yokosuka and we must stop it! Moreover because of the threat of war between USA and China it is quite a reality. Eh, IMHO Americans’ position in respect to Japan is very cynical and criminal even. I don’t want to see my nation bow to US ambitions. I think that they could make us hostages of their ambitions!


Agree! there is no reason for American to stay in East Asia! leave here, otherwise , It will not welcomed!

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Like I said, America needs to mind it's own darned business! Americians would be BEYOND ancy if another nation had forces stationed here so why do we think it's okay to do it to other nations?! I loath America's thinking regarding foriegn nations.

[mad pierrot]

We can't say that having lasting scars is wrong, it's natural. But Japan has been amazingly forgiving to the US but does the US care? No.

A loaded statement. Lest we all forget that Japan was the aggressor at the time, not the U.S. (Which has changed, of course.)


What about all the POWs Japan beheaded beforehand?

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I know my world history thank you, I'm not stupid. But the US shoulda hit the govorment not the people. It's an underhanded tactic the kind that the US SAYS it dispises.

And EVERYONE did horrible things in WWII it's a plain and simple fact. But I'm sorry to me what the US did was unjustifide and never will be in my mind. Terrorist hit the people instead of the nation leaders and we think that's, "so wrong" but it's kinda what we did in WWII, the only 'difference' is it was in "War Time." Which to most people makes all the difference but to me that was still thousands of INNOCENT men, women, and children that we bombed to death, I don't care if it was "War Time."

[mad pierrot]

But the US shoulda hit the govorment not the people.

If we wiped out the government who would decide the nation should surrender?


And EVERYONE did horrible things in WWII it's a plain and simple fact. But I'm sorry to me what the US did was unjustifide and never will be in my mind. Terrorist hit the people instead of the nation leaders and we think that's, "so wrong" but it's kinda what we did in WWII, the only 'difference' is it was in "War Time."

No doubt. Also no doubt that some nations clearly did worse things than others. No need to be sorry, I never said dropping the atomic bombs was justified. As far as terrorism is concerned, there is definately a big difference between it and war. It should also not go unmentioned that terrorism does indeed aim at governments, not just people.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Terrorists aim at the people to get the government to change. And what's the point of having a government to rule if there's no people? You can't fix a problem by making another one. If it's the government that's making these horrible things happen isn't taking care of them better then doing horrible things ourselves?

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

[4321go]

Terrorists aim at the people to get the government to change. And what's the point of having a government to rule if there's no people? You can't fix a problem by making another one. If it's the government that's making these horrible things happen isn't taking care of them better then doing horrible things ourselves?

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"


Which post is your 100th post ?

[mad pierrot]

Terrorists aim at the people to get the government to change.

Yep, and they also aim directly at the government.

And what's the point of having a government to rule if there's no people? You can't fix a problem by making another one.

Think practically. First of all, who said anything about "no people?" I'm specifically talking about U.S.- Japanese relations at the end of WWII. Real possibilities. If you want to get vague and talk philosophy, go right ahead. I'll follow. Otherwise, think about this: with the a decentralized Japan, no unification whatsoever, it would undoubtably break up into different factions. Now, instead of trying to get one group to surrender, you have to get a dozen. I'd hate to have to keep fighting a war like that. It would be counter productive for the U.S. and Japan's best interests.

[Mandylion]

Is it any problem that carrier Nimitz is deployed in Yokosuka? What relation to the atomic bomb and nuclear aircraft carrier of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is there?

Slow fission for power generation is a non-violent use of atomic energy, but to use that in an atomic submarine or giant aircraft carrier is again, and ultimately, military use.

Just to expand a bit -

Japan ratified the 1976 Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which, as a non-nuclear state, means Japan pleged to neither produce nor aquire nuclear weapons. Also, the domestic Atomic Energy Basic Law limits Japan to use nuclear energy only to produce electricity (etc). This is often summed in what are known as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles; Japan will not 1)posses, 2)produce, or 3)permit the introduction of weapons into Japan.

Thus, having a Nimitz-class nuclear powered carrier in a Japanese port, while it belongs to the US, is a tacit approval of military-grade nuclear equipment (since carriers might also have nuclear weapons on-board) in Japan, violating at least #1 and #3 of Japan's no-nuke policy.

However, it is generally observed that Japan does not ask the US if it has nuclear weapons on ships or bases in Japan and the US doesn't tell. The USS Kitty Hawk, while a conventionally powered carrier, probably had nukes on it at one point while it was in Japan...However, it is harder to quietly hide a nuclear carrier in a shed or cargohold.

For more information on carriers and the US fleet, check out the U.S. Navy's homepage (http://www.navy.com/about/shipsequipment/aircraftcarriers/types/)

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Think practically. First of all, who said anything about "no people?" I'm specifically talking about U.S.- Japanese relations at the end of WWII. Real possibilities. If you want to get vague and talk philosophy, go right ahead. I'll follow. Otherwise, think about this: with the a decentralized Japan, no unification whatsoever, it would undoubtably break up into different factions. Now, instead of trying to get one group to surrender, you have to get a dozen. I'd hate to have to keep fighting a war like that. It would be counter productive for the U.S. and Japan's best interests.

Right. You know people over here use that reasoning to say it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not saying that's what you're nessecarily saying but you get my point.
I'm sorry but there HAD TO BE some other way to stop the war. Maybe not going for the leaders, definitly not bombing two whole cities, there just HAD TO BE something else we could have done.
And did we drop the bombs on military points?? No, we dropped them on two cities filled with innocents. Why two cities?? Why not two military targets? Or something ANYTHING other then what we did. There just had to be another way.
And yeah, America went for the governemnt in Iraq and we can all see how well THAT worked :okashii: but it's better then if we'd dropped two atomic boms on two of their cities.

[mad pierrot]

Right. You know people over here use that reasoning to say it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not saying that's what you're nessecarily saying but you get my point.
I'm sorry but there HAD TO BE some other way to stop the war. Maybe not going for the leaders, definitly not bombing two whole cities, there just HAD TO BE something else we could have done.


You misconstrue my point. I'm not debating about whether or not the bombs should have been dropped. That's a big debate and an entirely different thread. I was making comments on the choice of targets.

And did we drop the bombs on military points?? No, we dropped them on two cities filled with innocents. Why two cities?? Why not two military targets?

This is subject to much debate. Suffice to say Hiroshima wasn't chosen as a tactical military target. Why? I've heard arguements that it was chosen because it was so particularly untouched. Perhaps the military was searching for a way to create a huge psychological disturbance that would force everyone into unconditional surrender. Not that I condole what they did. I've been to Hiroshima and even had the pleasure of speaking to one of the few survivors still around to talk about it. I sure as hell don't think what they did was right. On the other had, Hiroshima is actually small potatoes compared to the fire bombing of Tokyo, or the Allied bombing of Dresden. The only reason Hiroshima gets so much press it because it was done with one BIG bomb, instead of thousand of little ones. Anyways, this is a good topic, one that has not been discussed in a long time. Perhaps it's time to get it going again.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

The diff between the fire bombings of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are this: fire bombings don't leave LONG LASTING physical and genetic defects as a result of radiation posioning and toxins that remain long after an atomic bomb is dropped. Meaning even survivors are still maimed. Fire bombing a city is terrible, I'm not saying it's not (I've seen graphs of what happened to Tokyo and it mad me seriously lose my lunch), however the lasting effects of a fire bombing are nowhere near as severe as a atomic bombing.

[mad pierrot]

fire bombings don't leave LONG LASTING physical and genetic defects as a result of radiation posioning and toxins that remain long after an atomic bomb is dropped.

Yes, that's quite true, I never said otherwise. Yamaoka-san, who was near ground zero when the bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, is a testiment of the pains of nuclear war. She has had nine reconstructive surgeries, is half blind, deaf in one ear, and has malignant cancer. The radiation poisoning that occurs after a bomb is horrible. It's good it didn't last too long. It's nice to see flowers growing in the Peace Park.

I think about our current intercontinental ballistic missiles with hydrogen bomb warheads and shudder....
(The worse part is modern nuclear weapons are designed to spread radiation poisoning.)

Radiation poisoning aside, I definately wouldn't want to be one of the 400,00 + people in places like Dresden and Tokyo who watched their skin melt and eye balls fry.

Thank god the atomic weapons didn't do anymore damage than they did. It would have been awful if they dropped A-bombs on Tokyo.

[Blututh]

About the things the US did to the Japanese citizenry during WWII [namely the A-bombing]. Germany, the US, and especially Japan practiced a form of international aggression called "Total war", which is when the entire population is mobilized against foreign enemies. In the US, it was in the form of recycling programs and rationing, and extensive propaganda campaigns. In Germany, it was instituting anti-Semitism as a way to solve the problems of the German people, through foreign conquest. In the Japanese Empire, it was extremely extensive. It took many forms, including propaganda, rationing, recycling, state-sponsored racism against gaijin. But the main reason why the US dropped those devices against Japan was because the Japanese fought to the last man, and in Japanese schools during wartime, they tought children and adults alike, training them to use rifles, and mainly unarmed combat training. The estimated cost of a US land invasion of the main islands of Japan was at least 1 000 000 soldiers, not including the casualties that would have occured on the sea[naval battles] and air combat. This conventional way of taking Japan would have forced US soldiers to make difficult choices every day they would be invading ["Should I shoot that little schoolgirl who is sniping at people from a building?"]. Since a conventional bombing campaign, combined with a naval blockade and land invasion would have slaughtered NEARLY ALL Japanese citizens [the US did not want a historical reputation as a nation that wiped out an entire population] and cost at least 1 000 000 US soldiers, as well as untold amounts of income, supplies, and would scar US soldiers that returned for life [think Vietnam vets, but three or four times as bad], the Interim Committee concluded that dropping "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" was the lesser of the two evils.

I also think that it is in the United States best interests to keep Okinawa a fortified military installation until the tension with China is resolved. As if the $#!& hit the proverbial fan, Japan would have to choose sides, and either way, Okinawa would be a MAJOR US installation for defensive and offensive operations. But I also think that the US brass is keeping Okinawa US-controlled territory [wrongly] to make sure that Japan stays friendly. As US companies benefit from Japanese technology and exports.

Of course I concede that the A-Bombs were terrible, but keep in mind, the extensive fire-bombing campaigns that occurred after Midway and the Doolittle Raid caused much more damage, casualties, and wounded civilians than both nuclear bombs combined.

[zeroyon]

Whats the big deal with a Nimitz-class carrier being deployed in japan? Japan operates several Nuclear Power stations all over japan, and nuclear-powered subs already go in and out of Yokosuka harbor all the time. It won't change anything. The Kitty hawk is 40 years old and needs to be replaced...

[irishlight42]

I don't know that I'm entirely qualified to talk about the problem with the carrier Nimitz, though I don't think George W. Bush, stupid as he is, is planning on going to war with a nuclear super power like China anytime soon, seeing as how he can't even handle the occupation of a considerably smaller country like Iraq.

Moreover, and perhaps foremost I'm a bit confused how the Nimitz and the dropping of the bomb are related, but I'll put in my two cents about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, seeing as how that really seems to be the main topic of debate here.

Like pierrot said, it's a complex issue. I really don't feel that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were good targets, PERIOD, though I'm not sure any target really would have been good for that thing (but certainly less atrocious; Nagasaki carried the largest Christian population in Japan, it was not a military target or even a real industrial center for production). While there were more Japanese with anti-war sentiments than realized, and unfortunately more than realized today, I think ONE bomb, NOT TWO, needed to be dropped somewhere.

I don't know, nor do I think anyone knows (or knew for that matter; especially if the bomb didn't work which seemed a possibility at the time and would be humiliating to say the least) if a public demonstration for Japan's top military and/or political figures would have gotten a surrender. Some top military officials were indeed ready to send the Japanese population to their deaths (as had been done in previous battles, regardless of whether the soldiers really felt the war was justified) even after Nagasaki. There's an interesting sounding Toshiro Mifune movie that I wanna see (TOSHIRO MIFUNE RULES! :samurai: ) about the tension between military and political officials as to whether to surrender, but I can't seem to get a hold of it.

Anyways, invading Japan was not a decent alternative at all either, and was worse, because besides thousands of Americans dying (too much at the forefront of American minds is just AMERICAN lives rather than just lives) hundreds upon thousands if not millions of Japanese would have died. I say that not because all Japanese were subconscience fanatics as atypically portrayed (they were NOT), but because of the subconscience fanatics that were unfortunately in charge (as usually are in a totalitarian government; fall of Germany was bad, Hitler condemned his whole nation of people to go down with him, which fortunately didn't happen).

Totalitarian Japan MIGHT BY SOME be argued to be more evil than the bomb, as it killed a larger number of innocent people (yes civilians, men, women, and children) in mainland asia, but then the U.S. doesn't care enough about that once again because those weren't "AMERICAN" lives. If the fire bombs turned your stomach, then good, because it should. Though if you haven't already I would suggest researching into some of these things below (I might advise you personally not to check out pictures or videos too much if you have a weak stomach though):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changteh_Chemical_Weapon_Attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_Women (heavily debated by many Japanese; research it and then take it or leave it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimingye_germ_weapon_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandakan_Death_Marches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_1644
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8604
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_9420

About 8.4 million unarmed civilians (men, women, children right down to the infants) are have been confirmed as intentionally killed by the Japanese during the war in China, about 3 million in Korea, and I've been doing research but have yet to find a number for Singapore. Those are just the wikipedia links, you can find plenty more though about any one of those through a simple search. You want more solid evidence, I can provide though probably shouldn't on this thread as is not the topic. Now, these atrocities were bad, the average Japanese soldier WAS NOT responsible. Some soldiers however, if they refused to take part in atrocities, not only endangered his own life but that of his family.

People are human beings, and need understanding, our enemies, heirgo, are not people, but the extremist ideologies, which can be found in every country in the world (U.S., Japan, China, Germany, Chad and the Sudan it would certainly seem, etc.). There are many people in every country, and in every country there, even those with oppressive rules, there will always be MANY who are compassionate as opposed to cynical and nationalistic, as is what leads people like Hitler, Stalin, Hideki Tojo, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. coming to power.

[gaijinalways]

hero of the day wrote
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing taught us nothing. But now we have chance to change something, the fact is that Us Navy is going to deploy nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier Nimitz-class at Yokosuka and we must stop it! Moreover because of the threat of war between USA and China it is quite a reality. Eh, IMHO Americans’ position in respect to Japan is very cynical and criminal even. I don’t want to see my nation bow to US ambitions. I think that they could make us hostages of their ambitions!


Some would argue that Japan is already hostage to US ambitions, but personally I don't see it quite that way. The US-Japan 'romance' seems to be deteriorating, so I don't see Japan becoming a bigger puppet. As it is with China military growing, Japan would be better off to revive their own SDF as a regular military force.

As to nukes or no nukes, the ships are there, and whether they have nukes are not, I don't see how just worrying is going to change things, write to your government and complain.

Blutruth wroteIt took many forms, including propaganda, rationing, recycling, state-sponsored racism against gaijin.

I think that last part is still going on.