Reader comments
WWII survivors want N-weapons banned
55 comments | Read story
innocent civilian | 12:28 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I don't know whether nuclear weapons should be banned but I do have to
admit that weapons should NEVER be indiscriminately used on civilians. We as
the US have a moral duty to be an example to the world to avoid loss of innocent
lives. If we don't accept that responsibility, we are no better than the
terrorists.
Vietnam Vet | 5:00 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The fact is there never would have been an A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima if Japan
hadn't started the war in the first place with their attack on Pearl
Harbor. When will Japan apologize for Pearl Harbor? The US had to drop the
bomb in order to finally put an end to the Japanese war machine, that refused to
surrender any other way. In China alone, Japanese soldiers killed 10 to 30
million civilians.
lost in DC | 5:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
the indiscriminate killing of civilians was an accepted tactic of both sides
during WWII; don't get too sanctimonious. the concept of assured mutual
annihilation during the cold war prevented a third world war, and would have
been impossible without nukes.
Comments continue below
Different then | 6:14 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I'd bet that the attitude of these American Fighting men were different
back then than they are today. Today we are pushed around by other governments
to the point that we look like whimps and it's really easy to say
"Shame on us". The Japanese were supporting Hitler, Hello? I
don't see the Japanese coming to Pearl Harbor and feeling bad for what they
did.
darkest time in our history | 6:32 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The deliberate nuking of women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the
darkest time in America history.
The taking of innocent lives (both crowded cities were not military targets) was perhaps the beginning of the end of the country as we knew it.
May God have mercy on those responsible for this horror.
The taking of innocent lives (both crowded cities were not military targets) was perhaps the beginning of the end of the country as we knew it.
May God have mercy on those responsible for this horror.
Joe | 7:04 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Nuclear weapons are fearsome, and one can argue whether the bombings in Japan
were justified or not. More people died from firebombings, but we don't
discuss that. Simply put, the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put
back. The significant point is that despite their involvement in several wars
since WWII, neither the US or any other nation that has possessed these weapons
has used, or chose to use these weapons.
We can choose to unilaterally disarm ourselves, however, consider the alternatives carefully. If we were threatened by another nation/group with a nuclear weapon, and had no similar weapon or effective means of response, what would you have us do?
History provides some guidance. Poisonous gas was used extensively in WWI, and was a fearsome weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't militarily effective since there was little control over where it was dispersed, but it could kill fighters and civilians alike (kind of like large nukes).
Post-WWI, poisonous gas has not been used because of its possession by all combatants who feared the consequences of its use. In fact, it has only been used in one campaign, against a civilian population that had no effective response.
We can choose to unilaterally disarm ourselves, however, consider the alternatives carefully. If we were threatened by another nation/group with a nuclear weapon, and had no similar weapon or effective means of response, what would you have us do?
History provides some guidance. Poisonous gas was used extensively in WWI, and was a fearsome weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't militarily effective since there was little control over where it was dispersed, but it could kill fighters and civilians alike (kind of like large nukes).
Post-WWI, poisonous gas has not been used because of its possession by all combatants who feared the consequences of its use. In fact, it has only been used in one campaign, against a civilian population that had no effective response.
there is no excuse | 7:30 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Pearl Harbor was strictly a military base.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not.
I don't think God turns His back on innocent women and children caught between warring political factions thinking because they are part of a country that needs to be punished.
There is always a monumental difference between The People of a country and those who are running the country.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not.
I don't think God turns His back on innocent women and children caught between warring political factions thinking because they are part of a country that needs to be punished.
There is always a monumental difference between The People of a country and those who are running the country.
California Andy | 7:38 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
It was anything but America's darkest hour! When you are up against a
fanatical peoples who were trained from infancy to believe their current emperor
was one of a succession of Gods that had led the Japanese peoples to nothing but
victories for over 5,000 years, it took an A-bomb to blast them to 20th century
realities. As one of the previous commentors mentioned, loss of OTHERS lives
was nothing to the Japanese whose only concern was that the rank of the beheader
be at least equal to or superior to that of the beheaded. In my opinion, far
more on both sides would have died if there had been no A-bomb and the Allies
had physically attacked the Japanese mainland.
Nukes are no different than any other tool of war and hopefully our scientists have developed them to the point where they can be fired from a howitzer and kept to battlefield uses. Further, our national leaders should have advised the Islamo hordes that if a nuke goes off in this nation, they can consider their sacred Mecca to be a concave sheet of glass. Properly used, nukes are a means of keeping the peace, not war.
Nukes are no different than any other tool of war and hopefully our scientists have developed them to the point where they can be fired from a howitzer and kept to battlefield uses. Further, our national leaders should have advised the Islamo hordes that if a nuke goes off in this nation, they can consider their sacred Mecca to be a concave sheet of glass. Properly used, nukes are a means of keeping the peace, not war.
Roscoe | 8:15 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
to CA Andy -
by your logic, all nations should be given nukes in order to keep the peace. This is just as flawed as the notion that everyone should carry guns to protect themselves. We should be listening to Sherwood and Hiraoka. If Israel has nukes Iran obviously feels the need to have them as well - and so on. Don't look back to the days of Reagan - look to the future.
by your logic, all nations should be given nukes in order to keep the peace. This is just as flawed as the notion that everyone should carry guns to protect themselves. We should be listening to Sherwood and Hiraoka. If Israel has nukes Iran obviously feels the need to have them as well - and so on. Don't look back to the days of Reagan - look to the future.
I agree. | 8:27 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I think if not US bomb HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI,JAPAN wouldnt leave INDONESIA so
easily.Well,I am INDONESIAN.Beside story from my mom who experienced it by
herself,I know from history about how cruel the JAPANESS soldiers were.Although
its a horror to bomb innocent people in JAPAN,but in some way it also saved lots
lives in other nation.I dont say that i am glad US drop the bomb on JAPAN,but i
guess its their own cruelty over people of other nations that bring down fall to
their own people and nation.I remember my mom told me how they were force to
leave the house after being ordered to cook meal for all the soldiers.Yes,they
suddenly came and ordered all my mom family to leave.So they left without
knowing where to go.They just walked and try to find a place to stay.With her
sis and bro still small,she herself was about 9yrs old,Life was really like
hell.When there was a Japan flag everyone must stop and bow,otherwise they would
arrest you.Sometimes they would put people they arrest inside the big basket
and take them to a certain place and burn them alive.Without the bomb JAPAN
wouldnt surrender and caused suffering everywhere.
noclue2@frontiernet.net | 8:27 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The Japanese started the war by attacking the United States, without provocation
and killing civilians. We ended it the only way we could and in the long run
saved thousands of U.S. Soldiers. END OF STORY.
Dan | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
War is Hell!
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight all these years after, the moralists amongst us, most of whom were not yet born when the nukes were used, have no sense of the mood at that time. Most all of us loathe war, however, that war was not started by us, but the weapons developed by us sure contributed to the war's end. If the enemy would have developed the nukes first they certainly would have been used against us. If so the world would be a much different place. As a member of the Boomer generation, when I look at the graves of my relatives who died fighting a war this country did not start, and when I talk with my elder living relatives who remember well the mood at that time, I'm darned glad those weapons stopped the war. Unfortunately the nukes' use was ugly but fortunately their use was effective. To this day their use as both weapons and deterrents, like it or not, have benefitted us all.
War is Hell!
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight all these years after, the moralists amongst us, most of whom were not yet born when the nukes were used, have no sense of the mood at that time. Most all of us loathe war, however, that war was not started by us, but the weapons developed by us sure contributed to the war's end. If the enemy would have developed the nukes first they certainly would have been used against us. If so the world would be a much different place. As a member of the Boomer generation, when I look at the graves of my relatives who died fighting a war this country did not start, and when I talk with my elder living relatives who remember well the mood at that time, I'm darned glad those weapons stopped the war. Unfortunately the nukes' use was ugly but fortunately their use was effective. To this day their use as both weapons and deterrents, like it or not, have benefitted us all.
War is Hell!
Collateral Damage | 8:35 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
It is truly sad to read such viciousness spewing from some types on this
subject.
The mass slaughter of women, children, old people, etc. who, like us, are powerless in political decisions and the use of weaponry on other human beings, as nothing more than "collateral damage" quite possibly could be a sign of the end being nearer than we first thought.
May God have mercy on anybody who supports the extermination of innocent people.
The mass slaughter of women, children, old people, etc. who, like us, are powerless in political decisions and the use of weaponry on other human beings, as nothing more than "collateral damage" quite possibly could be a sign of the end being nearer than we first thought.
May God have mercy on anybody who supports the extermination of innocent people.
Darkest hour? | 8:40 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
You're joking, right? UNICEF estimates that if the U.S. hadn't
dropped the bombs, the war would have dragged on another 1 1/2 years and would
have taken 3 times as many lives (on both sides) as the bombs did.
Civilian deaths have been an acceptable result of war throughout history up until about 20 years ago. War is a much more surgical deal today, at least for civilized, responsible countries. But thanks to this modern stipulation, asymetrical warfare is the norm for the U.S. When Al-Qaeda kills thousands of civilians in the WTC it's OK, but when the U.S. blows up a mosque in Afghanistan where terrorists have taken refuge, it's all over CNN and being condemned by the U.N.
Civilian deaths have been an acceptable result of war throughout history up until about 20 years ago. War is a much more surgical deal today, at least for civilized, responsible countries. But thanks to this modern stipulation, asymetrical warfare is the norm for the U.S. When Al-Qaeda kills thousands of civilians in the WTC it's OK, but when the U.S. blows up a mosque in Afghanistan where terrorists have taken refuge, it's all over CNN and being condemned by the U.N.
no need for destruction | 8:43 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Pearl Harbor was a military base.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be the same as leveling all the civilians of Salt Lake City and Provo. The U.S. was winning the war and did not need to exterminate all those innocent people.
The administration wanted to show the world the "superior weaponry" it had.
END OF STORY.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be the same as leveling all the civilians of Salt Lake City and Provo. The U.S. was winning the war and did not need to exterminate all those innocent people.
The administration wanted to show the world the "superior weaponry" it had.
END OF STORY.
Roscoe | 8:43 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Yes, the Japanese attacked the U.S. without being provoked. Like the U.S.
attacked Iraq without being provoked. That's not disputed. Sherwood and
Hiraoka think nukes should be banned and they're right.
lost in DC | 8:41 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I have lived in Hiroshima. I have spoken with survivors, seen the scars, heard
the stories, been to ground zero. None of the stories that I heard were hostile
towards the US; those who told the stories realized it was war, with all its
terrible consequences. I did hear antagonism, but it only came from those born
after the end of the war.
Pearl Harbor was a military target, yes. What about all the Chinese cities with millions of residents the Japanese destroyed? Oh, but since some of our commenters choose to ignore the millions of Chinese civilians murdered by the Japanese, I can only surmise that they view those Chinese as less than human - shame on them! You also conveniently forget that the US and Philipino prisoners on Bataan were also non-combatants, but how many of them died because of the brutal treatment by the Japanese on the death-march?
Pearl Harbor was a military target, yes. What about all the Chinese cities with millions of residents the Japanese destroyed? Oh, but since some of our commenters choose to ignore the millions of Chinese civilians murdered by the Japanese, I can only surmise that they view those Chinese as less than human - shame on them! You also conveniently forget that the US and Philipino prisoners on Bataan were also non-combatants, but how many of them died because of the brutal treatment by the Japanese on the death-march?
Congratulations | 8:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Congratulations to Dick Sherwood, and Takashi Hiraoka for NOT keeping silent on
this horrific time in our history!
Also congratulations to all those personnel in the educational system of Salt Lake City on the decision
to allow these fine men to speak to our children on the truth of this subject without any ridiculous and excessive flag-wagging that produces such horror as executing mass populations of women and children for any reason.
Also congratulations to all those personnel in the educational system of Salt Lake City on the decision
to allow these fine men to speak to our children on the truth of this subject without any ridiculous and excessive flag-wagging that produces such horror as executing mass populations of women and children for any reason.
Why not ask Mr. Sherwood? | 8:55 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
To those cold-blooded neocons who insist "might is right" I suggest
they ask Mr. Sherwood if he TOO believes the murders of women and children is
necessary in war and perfectly fine and dandy.
He will speak again on Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake Main Library auditorium.
He will speak again on Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake Main Library auditorium.
Gotta love the peaceniks | 9:03 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Doesn't matter that dropping the atomic bombs saved millions of lives and
shortened the war by several years (the Allies alone were expecting to suffer at
least a million casualties in the invasion, one can only imagine how many
Japanese would have died) the only thing they focus on is how icky atomic
weapons are and how mean we were to use them.
I'm glad we ended the war by vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so is my father, who by August 1945 had already survived three separate Japanese attacks on his ship and was preparing to support the invasion forces.
He might not have been so lucky the fourth time around.
I'm glad we ended the war by vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so is my father, who by August 1945 had already survived three separate Japanese attacks on his ship and was preparing to support the invasion forces.
He might not have been so lucky the fourth time around.
KoreanVet | 9:14 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
We should all thank President Truman for having the guts to do what was
right.Probably a million American soldiers saved and a rapid change to establish
a peaceful government in Japan.The
Japanese top leaders were well warned about the type of weapons we had available at the time.(Of course not the civilians).
Japanese top leaders were well warned about the type of weapons we had available at the time.(Of course not the civilians).
BobP | 9:44 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The scriptures say that if you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind. The
Japanese sowed the wind in a quest for empire and 3 and a half years later
reaped the whirlwind.
In today's world where all of the resources of a nation at war are dedicated to that war, there are no innocent civilians. There are the people who grow the food, work in the factories, run the railways and build weapons. They aren't soldiers but civilians.
Harry Truman had a hard choice, but he made the right one.
It was noted that the "former mayor of Hiroshima" was in Korea at the end of the war. The Japanese had conquered and ravaged Korea since 1910 and he was there with his parents likely as a colonial administrators.
In today's world where all of the resources of a nation at war are dedicated to that war, there are no innocent civilians. There are the people who grow the food, work in the factories, run the railways and build weapons. They aren't soldiers but civilians.
Harry Truman had a hard choice, but he made the right one.
It was noted that the "former mayor of Hiroshima" was in Korea at the end of the war. The Japanese had conquered and ravaged Korea since 1910 and he was there with his parents likely as a colonial administrators.
It is so easy to play the victim | 10:00 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Each year a delegation of Japanese and "peace loving" Americans
descends on a little town in New Mexico. They spend a few days condemning the
work done there and the role of the Atomic Bombs that were built there. And
many who could not make the trip this year found there way to this blog. In all
of the years that I witnessed these peace rallies I never heard about the
citizens of Nanking who were raped and used for sword and bayonet practice.
Never heard mention of the Bataan March or the ungodly treatment of the Allied
POW's, nor did I hear about the treatments of the civilians in the
Phillipines, Burma or any of the other captured countries. All I heard about
was the poor, poor, Japanese. The reality is those bombs stopped a dirty awful
war. And the mere fact that we have not seen another hostile use of the atomic
bomb is testament to the reality that their use was appropriate. For all who
condemn their use, perhaps you ought to pick up some books about the totality of
World War II, you can go back to the invasion of Nanking for starters.
G | 10:35 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Mutually Assured Destruction has generally been a positive development over the
last 50 years, it assures there will be no more unrestrained conventional
warfare. Potentially suicidal rogue states are the only kink in the gears, which
is why nuclear Iran and N. Korea are such a problem.
Congratulations | 10:40 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I see our war-mongering neocons are at it again.
These horrible blood-thirsty people even authorize the mass destruction of innocent women and children who had nothing to do with WWII other than being in the wrong time and the wrong place while the political/economic games reached a crescendo.
Congratulations to Dick Sherwood, and Takashi Hiraoka for NOT keeping silent on man's inhumanity to man.
These horrible blood-thirsty people even authorize the mass destruction of innocent women and children who had nothing to do with WWII other than being in the wrong time and the wrong place while the political/economic games reached a crescendo.
Congratulations to Dick Sherwood, and Takashi Hiraoka for NOT keeping silent on man's inhumanity to man.
Dangerous neocons | 10:43 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The usual rationale for the mass destruction of women and children to end the
war with Japan was/is a total myth.
What else are neocons going to say: "We did it before and we can do it again?"
The supporters of the mass destruction are the absolute worst and potentially dangerous this great country has ever seen.
What else are neocons going to say: "We did it before and we can do it again?"
The supporters of the mass destruction are the absolute worst and potentially dangerous this great country has ever seen.
Prosecutor | 10:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
One can�t help but applaud the intent of sincere proponents
of peace, but - as in this case - myopic
na�vet� can destroy the credibility of
even the most sincere.
Like many before them, these proponents of "peace at any cost" invite war by advocating a disarmament that will only affect the civilized powers. This would create, not a nuclear-free paradise of prosperous equals, but, a nuclear wild west ruled by the most venal, cruel, and desperate. We must assure that no sane nation would attack us with WMD, even though that�s not complete protection.
Further, nuclear disarmament would have _zero_ effect on the primary method of mass destruction, murder by individuals or small groups (German holocaust; Japanese rape of Nanking and Korea; European and US massacre of Native Americans; Serb, Croat, and Bosniak atrocities in the Balkans over 2 centuries; Turk slaughter of Armenians; Muslim massacre of animists and Christians in Darfur -- the bloody list is endless and touches all peoples).
Finally, accusing President Truman and military leaders of the day � who are not here to defend themselves � of insensitivity and racism only leads one to wonder what their real agenda is.
Like many before them, these proponents of "peace at any cost" invite war by advocating a disarmament that will only affect the civilized powers. This would create, not a nuclear-free paradise of prosperous equals, but, a nuclear wild west ruled by the most venal, cruel, and desperate. We must assure that no sane nation would attack us with WMD, even though that�s not complete protection.
Further, nuclear disarmament would have _zero_ effect on the primary method of mass destruction, murder by individuals or small groups (German holocaust; Japanese rape of Nanking and Korea; European and US massacre of Native Americans; Serb, Croat, and Bosniak atrocities in the Balkans over 2 centuries; Turk slaughter of Armenians; Muslim massacre of animists and Christians in Darfur -- the bloody list is endless and touches all peoples).
Finally, accusing President Truman and military leaders of the day � who are not here to defend themselves � of insensitivity and racism only leads one to wonder what their real agenda is.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 10:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
The circumstances around the use of the atomic bombs are complex. First, if the
Allies had offered to Japan the kind of Occupation regime that was in fact
administered by Douglas MacArthur, there is a possibility that enough of the
Japanese leaders would have accepted it to make surrender possible. However,
there were also factions in the military who opposed surrender under any
circumstances, and on the day the decision was made to surrender, they attempted
a coup. Most major cities had already been destroyed by mass firebomb raids
that killed as many as the atomic bombs. The USSR, neutral against Japan till
then, declared war on August 9 and prepared to invade from the north. The State
Department wanted to scare the Soviets with the A-bombs. The Army wanted to
show it hadn't wasted the money in the Manhattan project. A US invasion
would have killed a million people on both sides. Truman justified use of the
A-bombs, but refused to use them in Korea even when the US was losing. Today,
Sam Nunn and other good men propose gradual nuclear disarmament, because nuclear
weapons must be used at the start of war or be lost to nuclear attack.
Two points of view | 11:01 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that
they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides
in the planned invasion of Japan.
Those who argue against the decision to drop the bombs characterize them as inherently immoral, war crimes or, crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. They may also argue that they were militarily unnecessary.
Either way, congratulations are in order to Dick Sherwood, and Takashi Hiraoka for having the courage to NOT keep silent on this horrific time in our history and to the school administrators responsible for putting this issue in the limelight when it has been swept under the carpet for years.
Those who argue against the decision to drop the bombs characterize them as inherently immoral, war crimes or, crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. They may also argue that they were militarily unnecessary.
Either way, congratulations are in order to Dick Sherwood, and Takashi Hiraoka for having the courage to NOT keep silent on this horrific time in our history and to the school administrators responsible for putting this issue in the limelight when it has been swept under the carpet for years.
an immoral act | 11:06 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
On August 8, 1945, Albert Camus addressed the bombing of Hiroshima in an
editorial in the French newspaper Combat:
"Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason."
In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
"Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason."
In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
Bombings as war crimes | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings,
many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or
state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo
Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly
written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major
role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
JanSan | 11:22 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I thought that it was interesting how in some of these comments we were told
about how God was so horrified about the killing of innocents and we were to
answer to him for it. I suggest you read the Old Testament. These people whether
fighting or just in the cities had spent years in training and in feeling
superior over others to the point of horrible violence to others, and as in the
times of the OT and Noah and the flood, these children and innocence were taken
home to a place where they would be free of all the horrors they had grown up
around. And the world got to stop the war, so that millions possibly, were also
saved from this continued horror. I don't like war- no one in their right
mind does, But as the Bible says, there is a time for peace and a time for
War....
Randy | 11:23 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
To darkest time in our history,
nuking 100,000 men, women, and children was horrific, and slavery was shameful, but the slow systematic extermination of America's native inhabitants, stealing their land, removing their culture, in my opinion is our darkest hour.
nuking 100,000 men, women, and children was horrific, and slavery was shameful, but the slow systematic extermination of America's native inhabitants, stealing their land, removing their culture, in my opinion is our darkest hour.
to JanSan 11:22 | 11:39 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I suggest after you read the Old Testament, take some time and read the NEW
Testament.
Christ appeared on the scene to do away with the war-mongering Old Testament ideology. (much more positive and filled with hope than the Old)
Christ appeared on the scene to do away with the war-mongering Old Testament ideology. (much more positive and filled with hope than the Old)
Bombings were unnecessary | 11:47 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that
Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Ike (A Republican) against nukes | 11:49 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D.
Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Guyaco | 12:23 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Sorry Dick and Takashi, money talks, but H-bombs sing opera. Best for us in this
world not to have a minor part.
wrz | 12:26 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
"WWII survivors want N-weapons banned."
Here's an idea. Let's send these guys on a mission to Iran to talk to Ahmadinejad about the issue. It'd be a good place to start.
Here's an idea. Let's send these guys on a mission to Iran to talk to Ahmadinejad about the issue. It'd be a good place to start.
Top Brass against nuking kids | 12:43 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings
include General Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of
Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military
intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S.
officials),[62] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the
Pacific Fleet.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
Racism and dehumanization | 12:55 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Historian James J. Weingartner sees a connection between the American mutilation
of Japanese war dead and the bombings. According to Weingartner both were
partially the result of a dehumanization of the enemy. "[t]he widespread
image of the Japanese as sub-human constituted an emotional context which
provided another justification for decisions which resulted in the death of
hundreds of thousands." On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman
stated: "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been
using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him
like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.
One may clearly see why Truman is one of George W. Bush's heroes.
One may clearly see why Truman is one of George W. Bush's heroes.
If you read this article..... | 1:53 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I can understand why these men feel the way they do. The American was involved
in the first flight over the bombed area, can you imagine what he saw? He
wouldn't even talk about it because it stirred up memories for him. I
can't imagine the horror he saw. I do have one question, why is it we judge
history with just the yardstick we have now? Let me give an example to explain.
When we look at the way kids are raised compared to 20-30 years ago and compare
it to today we could say we were abused, but at the time that we were being
raised did the general public view it as abuse? Probably not because it was the
standard of the day. Same applies to this bombing I don't think using
todays logic applies to an event from 60 years ago.
how many more would have died? | 2:04 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Had the US not dropped the A-Bomb on Japan, how many more MILLIONS of people
would have died - both US and Japanese? Had the US been faced with an invasion
of Japan, the war would have continued for years and the resulting destruction
would have made the A-Bomb destruction look small in comparison. Yes the A-Bomb
was terrible ..but so is war terrible and without the A-Bomb many more lives
would have been lost as well as hundreds of cities and towns destroyed.
BobP | 2:17 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
I will add a second comment. When I was a young missionary in North Carolina I
met a semi active member of the LDS Church who had been captured in the
Phillipines and then later transported to Japan to work in the coal mines near a
southern Japananese city. He was worked nearly to death and starved.
There was a range of hill between their camp and the City. He saw the Nagasaki bomb go off behind the hills. Shortly the lower level guards disappeared. The prisoners then turned on the senior guards, killed them all and then roamed the countryside taking whatever food they could find.
His comment was the he cheered the bombing and was glad it happened or he would have been dead within a month.
In a war your own side counts more than the other side.
There was a range of hill between their camp and the City. He saw the Nagasaki bomb go off behind the hills. Shortly the lower level guards disappeared. The prisoners then turned on the senior guards, killed them all and then roamed the countryside taking whatever food they could find.
His comment was the he cheered the bombing and was glad it happened or he would have been dead within a month.
In a war your own side counts more than the other side.
Anonymous | 2:20 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and
ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President
Truman.
And of course, our goofy neocons would today label Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy "a traitor" for speaking out against this darkest day in America's history.
And of course, our goofy neocons would today label Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy "a traitor" for speaking out against this darkest day in America's history.
The revisionists are at it again | 2:55 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
"But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that
has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval
forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted
service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not
necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world
have all turned against her interest.
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Japanese Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, 14 August 1945.
Despite what some Allied leaders are purported to have said, it sounds to me like the atomic bombs convinced the Emperor to surrender.
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Japanese Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, 14 August 1945.
Despite what some Allied leaders are purported to have said, it sounds to me like the atomic bombs convinced the Emperor to surrender.
Fatty | 3:03 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area
said of the B-29 fire raids on Tokyo, �We scorched and
boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than
went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.� This
is an understatement, but not by much.
I had the unique opportunity earlier this year to visit the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. One of the guides described nuclear weapons as "insanity run amock." I agree with him. A guide (I can't remember if it was the same one or not) also told us that sometimes Japanese people go in to visit the museum, and some of them have told him that had the U.S. not dropped the atomic bombs, there would not be a Japan today. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the end, eivilians and soldiers. Had the U.S. invaded the Japanese homeland, so many people, Japanese and American (but mostly Japanese) would have died, that these Japanese visitors to the museum probably would not have been born. . .Their parents and their parents' parents would have all been dead.
Agree or disagree, that's what I heard.
I had the unique opportunity earlier this year to visit the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. One of the guides described nuclear weapons as "insanity run amock." I agree with him. A guide (I can't remember if it was the same one or not) also told us that sometimes Japanese people go in to visit the museum, and some of them have told him that had the U.S. not dropped the atomic bombs, there would not be a Japan today. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the end, eivilians and soldiers. Had the U.S. invaded the Japanese homeland, so many people, Japanese and American (but mostly Japanese) would have died, that these Japanese visitors to the museum probably would not have been born. . .Their parents and their parents' parents would have all been dead.
Agree or disagree, that's what I heard.
Fatty again | 3:24 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Battle of Tarawa:
U.S.
Strength: 35,000 Losses: 1687 killed,~2,296 wounded
Japan
Strength: 3,000 troops, 1,000 Japanese and 1,200 Korean laborers
Losses: All but 17 Japanese and 129 Koreans
Battle of Peleliu:
U.S.
Strength: ~28,484 Losses: ~1,794 killed, ~8,010 wounded
Japan
Strength: ~11,000 Losses: ~10,695 killed, 202 captured
Battle of Iwo Jima:
U.S.
Strength: ~110,000 Losses: 6,821 dead, 19,189 wounded
Japan
Strength: 21,000 Losses: ALL but 216 men captured
Battle of Okinawa:
U.S.
Strength: 548,000 Losses: 12,513 KIA 38,916 wounded, 33,096 non-combat losses
Japan
Strength >100,000 Losses: estimated 94,000-130,000
7,500-10,700 captured
Also, 42,000-150,000 civilians killed
Numbers come from Wikipedia, but they agree with what I have read.
Truly horrible. What can be concluded from this? Possibly that had the U.S. had to invade Japan, that less than 10% of the original population would have survived? I'm not sure. Thankfully, it didn't happen.
Maybe the worst thing to come from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the cold war. But possibly those two cities saved us from even more catastrophic mistakes later on.
"You can kick us (the U.S.) in the knees, and annoy and bug us, but don't make us mad. . ." -Guide at the National Atomic Museum
U.S.
Strength: 35,000 Losses: 1687 killed,~2,296 wounded
Japan
Strength: 3,000 troops, 1,000 Japanese and 1,200 Korean laborers
Losses: All but 17 Japanese and 129 Koreans
Battle of Peleliu:
U.S.
Strength: ~28,484 Losses: ~1,794 killed, ~8,010 wounded
Japan
Strength: ~11,000 Losses: ~10,695 killed, 202 captured
Battle of Iwo Jima:
U.S.
Strength: ~110,000 Losses: 6,821 dead, 19,189 wounded
Japan
Strength: 21,000 Losses: ALL but 216 men captured
Battle of Okinawa:
U.S.
Strength: 548,000 Losses: 12,513 KIA 38,916 wounded, 33,096 non-combat losses
Japan
Strength >100,000 Losses: estimated 94,000-130,000
7,500-10,700 captured
Also, 42,000-150,000 civilians killed
Numbers come from Wikipedia, but they agree with what I have read.
Truly horrible. What can be concluded from this? Possibly that had the U.S. had to invade Japan, that less than 10% of the original population would have survived? I'm not sure. Thankfully, it didn't happen.
Maybe the worst thing to come from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the cold war. But possibly those two cities saved us from even more catastrophic mistakes later on.
"You can kick us (the U.S.) in the knees, and annoy and bug us, but don't make us mad. . ." -Guide at the National Atomic Museum
unneccesary nuking of civilians | 3:29 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Thanks 'revisionists' -
but I think I'll embrace the two WWII survivors who were there and know of which they speak, Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy and former Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower on this one.
The Truman administration was playing ideological power politics (sound familiar?) and thus the distinguished military officials mentioned above saw right through it and declared the darkest hour in America (nuking civilians for ANY reason) to be clearly unnecessary.
but I think I'll embrace the two WWII survivors who were there and know of which they speak, Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy and former Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower on this one.
The Truman administration was playing ideological power politics (sound familiar?) and thus the distinguished military officials mentioned above saw right through it and declared the darkest hour in America (nuking civilians for ANY reason) to be clearly unnecessary.
the truth | 4:46 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
Reading all these comments and seeing liberals blaming conservatives and neocons
as warmongers for just believing it was necessary,
all ignoring one one undeniable fact:
It was democratic President Truman and his liberal democratic henchmen who decided to nuke japan.
NO REPUBLICAN president ever has signed off to using a nuclear weapon.
Then use quotes from christians and republicans to support their point!
One more point:
@ROSCOE:
US did not attack Iraq without reason or provocation. Iraq had ignored UN resolution after UN resolution. There comes a time when the talking is done.
all ignoring one one undeniable fact:
It was democratic President Truman and his liberal democratic henchmen who decided to nuke japan.
NO REPUBLICAN president ever has signed off to using a nuclear weapon.
Then use quotes from christians and republicans to support their point!
One more point:
@ROSCOE:
US did not attack Iraq without reason or provocation. Iraq had ignored UN resolution after UN resolution. There comes a time when the talking is done.
registering in record numbers | 6:12 p.m. Aug. 5, 2008
By just reading what "the truth" has to say and now he says it, I can
now see why people (some who have never voted before) have been registering as
Democrats by the gazillions.
What do you suppose motivates neocons anyway?
It certainly is not common sense.
What do you suppose motivates neocons anyway?
It certainly is not common sense.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Dick Sherwood, left, of Salt Lake City, meets with Takashi Hiraoka, former mayor of Hiroshima, Japan.
- Man's ninth DUI conviction upheld 4:58 p.m.
- Investigators identify skull 4:58 p.m.
- Snow may fly with weekend warm-up 4:46 p.m.
- 'Half-Blood Prince' on DVD 4:40 p.m.
- Traditional animation for 'Princess' 4:35 p.m.
- Defense witness goes on offensive 4:28 p.m.
- Push Play pushes its music 4:26 p.m.
- DVDs help create Christmas warmth 4:20 p.m.
- Holiday album fun for Archuleta 4:17 p.m.
- Dining out: China House 4:11 p.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- Mutated version of H1N1 found
- Letters: Global warming a lie
254 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall192
- Palin signs books, chats with fans151
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil148
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead123
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness112
- Revive full food tax?105
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
Latest comments
The Apostle Jihn A Widtsoe once stated,"The best place to obtain information...
There was a Wincgells or Kirspy Kreme Shop up in the mountains..they would...
May we suggest you repent over there in Utah, get around to read the Book of...
Un gran esfuerzo para que esa hermosa obra llegue a más corazones. Bravo!
You seem aptly-named.
That's Utah County for ya. Lame
I agree with Anonymous 4:32 p.m. Mitchell knows exactly what he did and what...
. . . agressive panhandling! Using a MAC-10! Hopefully the agressive...
Actually, it peaked at #2 on Billboard's Holiday Chart, but nice article!
What an amazing bball player and if you know him he is even more of an...
Advertisements