65th anniversary of Hiroshima

[southsider2k5]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/hirosh...ory?id=11340739

 

U.S. Finally Comes to Hiroshima, 65 Years Later

Survivors Still Calling for Recognition and Medical Aid

 

13 comments

By MARGARET CONLEY

TOKYO, Aug. 6, 2010

 

A peace toll sounded today to mark the minute the first atomic bomb was unleashed on humankind; on Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m. Aug. 6, 1945. The United States dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki three days later.

 

"No one else should have to suffer this horror," said Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, whose speech ended with the release of hundreds of doves to symbolize peace.

 

About 140,000 people died in Hiroshima then. Few survived. Fewer live to willingly share their stories.

 

For decades after the end of Word War II, many Japanese hid that they were survivors, given the stigma of being exposed to radiation.

 

While the number of atomic bomb survivors, or "hibakusha" in Japanese, is dwindling, their voices are growing stronger.

 

At an average age of 76 years, survivors speak out for recognition of their ailments and seek medical aid from the government.

 

"For those waiting to be recognized as sufferers of atomic bomb diseases," Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan said during his speech, "the government will do its best to grant recognition at the earliest date possible. Furthermore, we will advance deliberations on revising the system for the recognition of atomic bomb diseases through changes to the law."

 

Survivors also offer an oral history for future generations.

 

"It was a burnt black piece of mass dripping with bodily fluids," survivor Mikiso Iwasa told ABC News. "My mother was killed as a thing. Not as a human."

 

They openly shared vivid images forever seared into their hearts and minds.

 

"I was 7 years old when I was nuked," Michiko Kodama told ABC News. "People whose eyeballs had popped out of their sockets and were dangling in front of their faces."

 

Today in Hiroshima, their voices were heard by representatives spanning 74 countries.

 

The United Nations Secretary General attended the ceremony for the first time. Ban Ki-moon met with survivors afterwards.

 

This was the first attendance for official representatives from the United States, Britain and France, drawn by the big anniversary and an opportunity to push nuclear disarmament.

 

"For the sake of future generations," U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos said in a statement, "we must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons."

 

Some people believe Washington's decision to send an ambassador to the ceremony could open the door to a future visit to Hiroshima by President Obama, which would be unprecedented for a sitting president. He has been to Japan.

 

"If Obama is so keen about abolishing nuclear weapons," an attendee said to Japanese broadcaster NHK, "then he should visit Hiroshima."

 

The end hope here is to prevent the use of atomic weapons in today's radically different world.

 

Diana Alvear contributed to this report.

 

[GoSox05]

Here are a couple never seen before pictures of the aftermath.

 

 

LIFE - Never before seen photos.

[BigSqwert]

Here are a couple never seen before pictures of the aftermath.

 

 

LIFE - Never before seen photos.

Ugh. Disgusting.

[shipps]

Ugh. Disgusting.

 

Its really something how mankind has destroyed one another throughout history.

 

Rodney King was somewhat of a genius.

[Milkman delivers]

With all due respect to the people who suffered (and continue to suffer) due to the bombings, I still say it was the right decision.

[FlaSoxxJim]

With all due respect to the people who suffered (and continue to suffer) due to the bombings, I still say it was the right decision.

 

That was certainly the majority opinion for many decades and now that is changing as more becomes known about Japan's capacity (or lack thereof) to continue its war efforts. That said, I respect this opinion, especially as held by WWII vets like my grandfather who believed whole-heartedly that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise.

 

In any case, let us hope to never again see nuclear weapons used against fellow human beings.

[HuskyCaucasian]

What I find fascinating is that Truman never regretted it: "I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

[Balta1701]

What I find fascinating is that Truman never regretted it: "I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

I believe that's an edited quote though...or at least he has another version of it. The version of it I've heard is that under the same circustances I would do it again, but if I knew then what I know now, I would not have.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I believe that's an edited quote though...or at least he has another version of it. The version of it I've heard is that under the same circustances I would do it again, but if I knew then what I know now, I would not have.

I cant find that anywhere online.... but I am still looking.

 

This is the source of the above quite. A letter to Irv Kupcinet.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[FlaSoxxJim]

I believe that's an edited quote though...or at least he has another version of it. The version of it I've heard is that under the same circustances I would do it again, but if I knew then what I know now, I would not have.

 

Yes, I believe that paraphrasing is much closer to what Truman was trying to convey.

 

The poor guy didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until he was sworn in less than four months earlier. Talk about having a lot to take in and very little time in which to do it.

 

It's not my intent to get this thread 'bustered — and I thank SS2k5 for observing the anniversary with his post. But, I firmly believe that deploying an atomic bomb on human targets was a foregone conclusion the minute the US committed to their development. You don't spend ca. $2.5 billion (more than $20 billion by today's standards) to create a weapon you're not going to use.

[Soxbadger]

It is one of those moments when you just are not sure what the best course of action is.

 

The development of the Atomic Bomb was not for the Japanese Front, it was to combat Hitler and to hopefully get one before he did.

 

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan is debatable. In my opinion there is no right answer. No matter what thousands of people were going to die, whether it was American troops, Japanese troops or Japanese civilians. That being said, Im not sure that even the US understood what the ramifications of the bomb would be.

[Milkman delivers]

That was certainly the majority opinion for many decades and now that is changing as more becomes known about Japan's capacity (or lack thereof) to continue its war efforts. That said, I respect this opinion, especially as held by WWII vets like my grandfather who believed whole-heartedly that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise.

 

In any case, let us hope to never again see nuclear weapons used against fellow human beings.

 

And that's all we can base it on. Given the circumstances at the time, it was the right decision.

[Milkman delivers]

It is one of those moments when you just are not sure what the best course of action is.

 

The development of the Atomic Bomb was not for the Japanese Front, it was to combat Hitler and to hopefully get one before he did.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan is debatable. In my opinion there is no right answer. No matter what thousands of people were going to die, whether it was American troops, Japanese troops or Japanese civilians. That being said, Im not sure that even the US understood what the ramifications of the bomb would be.

 

When you're the leader of a nation, you choose to save your people every time.

[GoSox05]

White Light, Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

Good documentary.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, I believe that paraphrasing is much closer to what Truman was trying to convey.

 

The poor guy didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until he was sworn in less than four months earlier. Talk about having a lot to take in and very little time in which to do it.

 

It's not my intent to get this thread 'bustered — and I thank SS2k5 for observing the anniversary with his post. But, I firmly believe that deploying an atomic bomb on human targets was a foregone conclusion the minute the US committed to their development. You don't spend ca. $2.5 billion (more than $20 billion by today's standards) to create a weapon you're not going to use.

 

I was curious how this thread would go honestly. It is interesting to see how these things go.

[lostfan]

And that's all we can base it on. Given the circumstances at the time, it was the right decision.

Yeah, I don't feel good about it at all, but I agree with this. I mean in hindsight, you can make an argument that we could've gotten away with not doing it but Truman didn't really have that luxury.

[StrangeSox]

Good opportunity to post this, though it may have already been posted here a few months ago:

 

Man who survived 2 atom bombs dies

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/0...dies/index.html

[Milkman delivers]

Good opportunity to post this, though it may have already been posted here a few months ago:

 

Man who survived 2 atom bombs dies

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/0...dies/index.html

 

The fact that this guy never developed superpowers makes me believe nobody ever will.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The fact that this guy never developed superpowers makes me believe nobody ever will.

 

Maybe it's like soap opera amnesia, and the super powers he developed from the first bomb were nullified by the second bomb?

[Milkman delivers]

Maybe it's like soap opera amnesia, and the super powers he developed from the first bomb were nullified by the second bomb?

 

Then his luck was even worse than it originally seemed.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, I don't feel good about it at all, but I agree with this. I mean in hindsight, you can make an argument that we could've gotten away with not doing it but Truman didn't really have that luxury.

 

And what we had to go on was how much of a b**** it was to clear meaningless islands in the Pacific. More people died on Iwo Jima than on D-Day. On that island we had to kill, or have commit suicide about 98% of the Japanese troops there. Of 22,000 people, we only had 216 prisoners. Thinking of those kind of numbers and now thinking of the mainland, I can't blame them.

[DukeNukeEm]

And what we had to go on was how much of a b**** it was to clear meaningless islands in the Pacific. More people died on Iwo Jima than on D-Day. On that island we had to kill, or have commit suicide about 98% of the Japanese troops there. Of 22,000 people, we only had 216 prisoners. Thinking of those kind of numbers and now thinking of the mainland, I can't blame them.

Yeah but what was left of those soldiers died on Okinawa, the remaining Japanese Army was not as tenacious as what the US encountered on Guadalcanal and Iwo. They had no airplanes, fuel, vehicles, bullets or rifles. Japan was incapable of even mounting a resistance against the 1940's American war machine.

 

Also, when you task 22,000 soldiers to defend a tiny island its a lot easier than having the same number defend all of mainland Japan. If there was a pocket of fanatical resistance we could just bomb the tar out of it and go around. If you really look at it, Japan would've surrendered in the time it took our tanks to drive from one end of the island to the other. Maybe you would have roughly the same number dead as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you wouldn't have opened the whole can of worms that is nuclear warfare.

[Balta1701]

Yeah but what was left of those soldiers died on Okinawa, the remaining Japanese Army was not as tenacious as what the US encountered on Guadalcanal and Iwo. They had no airplanes, fuel, vehicles, bullets or rifles. Japan was incapable of even mounting a resistance against the 1940's American war machine.

 

Also, when you task 22,000 soldiers to defend a tiny island its a lot easier than having the same number defend all of mainland Japan. If there was a pocket of fanatical resistance we could just bomb the tar out of it and go around. If you really look at it, Japan would've surrendered in the time it took our tanks to drive from one end of the island to the other. Maybe you would have roughly the same number dead as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you wouldn't have opened the whole can of worms that is nuclear warfare.

My opinion is...2k5 is half right.

 

If the option was a full invasion of Japan...the death toll was going to be in the millions. By the time you got on shore, there wasn't going to be a surrender.

 

OTOH, and the reason why in hindsight Truman was willing to be more hesitant...if the U.S. was willing before they dropped the bomb to accept some measure of the Emperor maintaining his role as the U.S. did after dropping the bomb, it might have been settled without either invasion or the bomb. Then again...

[Milkman delivers]

Yeah but what was left of those soldiers died on Okinawa, the remaining Japanese Army was not as tenacious as what the US encountered on Guadalcanal and Iwo. They had no airplanes, fuel, vehicles, bullets or rifles. Japan was incapable of even mounting a resistance against the 1940's American war machine.

 

Also, when you task 22,000 soldiers to defend a tiny island its a lot easier than having the same number defend all of mainland Japan. If there was a pocket of fanatical resistance we could just bomb the tar out of it and go around. If you really look at it, Japan would've surrendered in the time it took our tanks to drive from one end of the island to the other. Maybe you would have roughly the same number dead as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you wouldn't have opened the whole can of worms that is nuclear warfare.

 

Oh, OK. They would've given up in the time it took some tanks to drive from one end of the island to the other. Would've been that easy.

[G&T]

I thought the prevailing theory was that Truman feared Russia's advance into Japan which would prolong the war and give them another country. So Truman wanted the war to end immediately.

This was the thought about 10 years ago anyway so I have no clue whether it holds any water.