When I taught English a lifetime ago, I used to teach John Hersey’s “Hiroshima”. This week I met two hibakusha (survivors of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in person for the first time in my life. It was very affecting. She was 80; he was 73. She is Shigeko Sasamori and he is Michi Hirata. They were inspiring. If you want to see some pictures of their visit, go to Mary Wareham’s flickr page . Thanks to Mary for those pics. To hear their stories is to go back to my 5th form English class and revisit why it was a good idea that Hersey’s work was part of the curriculum. It is still a good idea.
Today is the anniversary of the Nagasaki bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August 1945. On Sunday of this week (Aug 5), Grant Robertson and I attended the annual commemoration of the dropping of those bombs on Japan in 1945. At the commemoration, students from Heretaunga College spoke about why they, who have only ever been told stories and read stuff, are ardently in favour of a nuclear-free world. They were inspiring too.
Next week, Parliament will receive a report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee – an all-party report, with no minority report - proposing that New Zealand join with other like-minded countries to advance a convention prohibiting the development, stockpiling, transfer and use of nuclear weapons. This is in response to a petition from Edwina Hughes on behalf of the Peace Movement Aoteaora. Officials advised us against it, as something which would not be supported by the major powers. Sure, that might be so. Should that stop us from aiming for the stars? The committee said no. Officials said that about cluster munitions at the time, and we got a treaty on that. This could just be the start of the next step towards a nuclear-free world. Too idealistic? God (or someone) protect us from politicians without ideals. You can read the report here. I await the government’s response in 90 days.
Happy anniversary.
Those that have the bomb are very righteous that nobody else should ever get one .. Emminently sensible?…Well,of course, but only when the ‘nuclear states’ get rid of their stockpile, and nuclear manufacturing ability, will they exhibit real moral credibility.
If Israel, who has so often been so over the top in its reaction to understandable anger by the displaced, would destroy its nuclear arsenal, it might help quiet some hotheads in that most volatile region, and just possibly contribute to peace. The present ‘nuclear unbalance’ in the Middle East ineviteably incites others to match Israel. While the US maintains its almost totally uncritical support(token restraint only!), Israel has no need at all of its own nuclear weapons. But the clear evidence is that that ‘state’ will never cede anything. Israel treats the UN with contempt.
We, ‘once were brave’ and acted with principle – and consequently caused offence to the US – but now I suspect our present government would happily drop our nuclear free status if it were not for public opinion. Key once said that we should have been in Iraq with the ‘coalition of the willing’! Help! We must wonder what he would ‘give’ for a priority berth in Pearl Harbour.
Happy Aniversary indeed?
“If Israel were to destroy their Nuclear arsenal”. Then Iran would start a regional war .
But of course anything that effects the US and Israel has got to be good , dosent it
@ Inverness
As a world power the US has done many good and bad things, The good stuff tends to be forgoten -it is just duty? – say like looking after the kids. The bad stuff causes huge and ongoing resentment, and is not forgotten quickly by the victims! Any power needs to strive to behave fairly -it should always attempt to get UN sanction. The US has failed miserably in this respect in some major conflicts, which in hindsight even it might concede were mistakes.
I do not believe Iran would ever invade Israel while the US so staunchly supports it. It would be suicide! That is why Israel could destroy its nuclear arsenal and still be safe. The US is actually seen by other mid east countries as more reasonable than Israel.
Israel was essentially just gifted to the present inhabitants, at the expense of the long standing residents. OK – it was UN sanctioned, perhaps it should not have been , but now, at least Israel should realise its good fortune, and attempt, in good faith, to live in harmony with its neighbours – some of whom it displaced of course. Not easy at all given the history – but possessing unnecessary nuclear weapons is just a flamming red rag to the bull
[...] issuing the report includes representatives from the government and opposition parties such as Labour and the Greens. The report did not include a “minority report” meaning that all [...]
It is a fact that by dropping the nuclear bombs, hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen’s lives were spared by forcing the surrender. If Japan had not surrendered, an invasion would have been needed, NZ would have been involved (our Navy and Air Force were already en route), and our war memorials would be several times larger for all the dead.
I am forever grateful to Pres Truman and his brave decision to force an end to the war.
@Jimmy – the atomic bombs were intended to be used against the Germans. It was only through a secret agreement between Churchill and Truman that it was agreed (post-German surrender) they had a chance to test them on a live population in Japan.
The Japanese government received no warning nor ultimatum regarding the use of the atomic bomb, nor were they warned (as the Soviets were) that the US had developed a weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks to their development and use, the governments of the World are locked in a perpetual prisoner’s dilemma where international relations are molded on the assumption that your diplomatic partners are prepared to unleash that massive destructive force on your country.
It is sad you have such an ignorant point of view. You are badly in need of some insight and should visit the atomic bomb memorial museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And governments around the world should relinquish their nuclear weapons.
Tim
At no point do you address the fact that dropping the bombs on Japan forced the surrender, which saved hundreds of thousands of Allied servicemen’s lives.
Japan had ample opportunity to surrender before the planned invasion of the home islands, Japan chose not to do so. Truman’s decision to drop the bombs was the catalyst for the surrender, nothing else.
Is it at all relevant as to which axis power the bombs were originally intended for?
Yes it is, because it is intimately linked to the fact that the Allies wanted an opportunity to test the destructive force of their weapon of mass destruction on a live civilian population. This was achieved by the:
a) lack of notice of development to the weapon to Japan; and
b) lack of ultimatum (i.e. tender your surrender or else we are going to nuke your civilians).
As for hundreds of thousands of lives of allied servicemen, you really have no idea.
There is a particularly affecting video in the Nagasaki museum of 3 POWs, one of them Australian, who were in Nagasaki, at a camp extremely close to the hypocenter of the explosion, who describe (in interviews which I guess were filmed in the late-80s/early-90s) witnessing the explosion and its immediate aftermath when they were roaming ground zero. All 3 (very old blokes) tearfully condemn the use of the atomic bomb. To me their opinion holds a little more weight than ignorant, after-the-fact, nationalistic apologists for its use.
But I’m serious – visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki – they are both wonderful, old and foreigner-friendly cities, visit their memorial museums, then we can continue our discussion.
Tim,
Your two points seem a little naive,
Point a, why would you tell people about a secret weapons program so they could then target their intelligence resources at finding and destroying.
Point b, why would you inform that you were about to use a nuclear weapon, unless of course you wanted every defence aimed to stop it.
I’m not a fan of nuclear weapons but I do believe it saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied serviceman.
Tim
Why do I have no idea about the well established fact that the Allies were predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths when invading the Home Islands?
The US made so many purple hearts they only ran out in the 1990s.
And let me get this straight – because I have not been to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I am therefore not entitled to an opinion about the matter?
Japan started the war. Truman finished it.
Except:
- It was the combined view of the American military generals that Japan was already defeated by mid-1945 and would surrender pre-invasion;
- Japan was already negotiating for peace through the Soviet Union with whom they already had a neutrality pact (as I recall the USSR went ahead and declared war on them again only the day after the Hiroshima bomb was detonated);
- the use of the Atomic Bomb had the obvious chilling effect on the USSR to sort out the Allies’ WW2 endgame (which was a moveable feast);
- even the coldest argument for the bomb’s necessity can’t get around the fact that there was clearly no military necessity to elect civilian areas as the hypocenter for detonation (you could read 100 articles in support of its use and never find an argument to support this appalling war crime).
For something fairly lightweight, check out – http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
I am not arguing that you have no right to a view on the subject, I’m just pointing out that you are judging it from an incredibly remote perspective/point in history and your insight would be deepened by more immediate experience of it.
” It was the combined view of the American military generals that Japan was already defeated by mid-1945 and would surrender pre-invasion;”
But Japan didn’t surrender until well after the second bomb had been dropped. Doesn’t really support that argument. I am more than thankful that the allies didn’t lose the estimated up to 500000 casualties that were being talked about for an invasion of the home islands. The Japanese fought far too well on Okinawa to want to risk that when another option was available. The us has had almost four years of war and lost a lot of men saving our bacon. I think it is more than reasonable for them not to want to lose more.
And Japan was given direct warning of the dire consequences that were intended before the first bomb was dropped. The military leaders chose to ignore that warning.
For my part, thank god for the atomic bomb. If the us hadn’t had it in 1945 at the end of the war, then the whole of Europe would probably be speaking Russian by now.
Regarding Israel, what a dream world. Obama becoming president has made it clear to the Israeli’s that they better be prepared to look after themselves.
Well that speaks to the argument that the mass-murder of civilians with nuclear weapons was only to deter the USSR, doesn’t it?
So you think it takes nuclear weapons to maintain the sovereignty of nations? I’m so glad I don’t live in your world.
But you do live in my world. That’s what your comment was bitching about. Things aren’t as you would like them to be.
@ to those above defending the deliberate killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Ngasaki.
The US could have dropped the bombs on sparsely populated areas to get the message across. It may have taken a little longer, but Japan was virtually on its knees by then and thousands of innocent adults and children could have been spared
Paul B – sounds good in theory, but in practice even Hiroshima itself didn’t “get the message across”. The other issue was the us didn’t exactly have lots of spares that they could “waste” for a demo ie they didntt have any more bombs available. They hadn’t even tested the Hiroshima bomb and they had never actually test dropped the Nagasaki bomb. So, the us would have looked pretty silly if the us has done the demo, the military Japanese government had ignored them (or the bomb failed), so they had to use the second (ie last) bomb (say on Hiroshima), and then the Japanese government had ignored that one (as they did in real life), then you could have had the war dragging on for who knows how long. As I understand it, they did consider a “demo” but decided against it.
@ one track I know the US military said that… but do you believe them? We all Know… “‘Truth’ is the first casualty of war”. There must have been some isolated military estabishments that they could bomb that would get the message across. The US had suffered some brutal battles .. and then there was Pearl Harbour. Perhaps they could not resist those two very lethal displays? The Japanese may not have not signed the Geneva Convention… but the US had! Of course Churchill did something similsr with Germany… one excuse was to drag the Lufftwaffe home and off Stalins back.( so he could annex most of Eastern Europe!?) Yeah sure ,it is easy to question in hindsight, and far away from the blowtorch. But it does no harm to discuss the moral issues to remind todays ‘military’ that there are always humanitarian considerations?
Truth is also clearly a casualty of OneTrack’s postings.
On what basis do you suggest Japan hadn’t “got the message across” after Hiroshima? It is well documented that between 7 – 9 August were spent in urgent meetings of their military debating the four pillars of their surrender, namely:
1. the preservation of the the Emperor and whether or not he’d renounce his divinity,
2. which arm of government would be responsibile for disarmament and demobilization,
3. The continued occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Taiwan and whether this would continue; and
4. Delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.
They had been debating these before Hiroshima, but, as you might have noticed in the recent TEPCO/nuclear disaster fracas, things move slowly in Japan because that is just how things are.
Do you argue, likewise, that between Nagasaki on 9 August, and the surrender on 15 August, Japan also clearly hadn’t got the message?
You are just making things up to suit yourself and you are an apologist for the mass-murder of 240,000 people.
As for this:
You know what you are.
No surprises that you are also an apologist for Israel maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
“It is a fact that by dropping the nuclear bombs, hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen’s lives were spared by forcing the surrender”
But innocent women and children are alright to be vapourised. Idiot.
“I am forever grateful to Pres Truman and his brave decision to force an end to the war.”
I’m not so troubled by the misuse of ‘Brave’, more the ‘forever grateful’ to a bloke who committed a crime against humanity, not once, but twice.
A little more research and less defense of US propaganda may add some sense to the argument.
Parroting one sided claims distorts a fair view.
There was no justification for nuking Japan or anywhere.
“Parroting one sided claims distorts a fair view.” – so true
What was that, Polly? Another cracker?
How is it possible that my post flushed out people who think the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a good idea? Do you mean to tell me that the life mission of the two survivors whom I met is misguided? Tell that to the 50 or so young people who got to school at 8am to hear from them; or to the 70 or so who stayed behind after school at another place to hear them speak of peace and nuclear non-proliferation and abolition. Perhaps it is the hopes and optimism of the young we should be listening to, not the hot air theories of others.
Maryan I am not surprised as we have many conservative minds in the population and in parliament.
The senselessness of nuclear technology is completely missed by them as they are comforted by the spin and false perspective presented by the “forever business as usual” pundits who appear incapable of understanding or caring about the bigger picture for generations ahead let alone tomorrow.
There exists millions of times more nuclear waste from power generation than what is needed to wipe out life as we know it on the planet. This waste is growing daily and represents massive costs for processing and disposal which would make nuclear the most financially expensive source of power ever devised.
But there is no means of dealing with this waste pile. We allow private energy companies to pay dividends to their shareholders and leave the waste in cooling tanks. The small amount processed is just a PR exercise. The public are not told the real situation.
Nuclear weapons defy logic. Most discussion of them is a pathetic parroting of political stances and utterances of fools playing to the conservative minds who just lap up the ultimate answer to opposition.
The power game played out by the bankers and their political puppets depends on the public accepting the propaganda proliferated by the press and media. War and the industrial military complex is now a continuous reality consuming money and resources at an escalating rate on this finite planet. There is no intelligent control or regulation of such criminal destruction for power and greed.
But there are more immediate concern we are powerless to address because of public ignorance allowing the power brokers to do as they like for financial gains.
If you read nothing else then get a taste of what the papers don’t explain.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035789_Fukushima_Cesium-137_Plume-Gate.html
And for a wider perspective looking at foolishness, conservative thinking and the mess it has led us into; as well as prescription of a logical way forward out of the perilous situation, if luck and time allow.
http://download.freshcurrents.org/
I came upon this thread when looking for a home for a Letter to the Herald that didn’t get published, but which I wanted to see get some airplay for since it was a crystallisation of a number of threads that I have been thinking about recently.
(BTW I come down firmly on side of the view that atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were egregious crimes against humanity. I also commend the article below about the racism behind the dropping of the bombs which was new to me when I came across the article. http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/3708/)
As I see that the thread began with Maryan and Grant at Hiroshima Day commemorations, and having heard that Grant is an enthusiastic supporter of the Gallipoli memorial, I see that my view may stir the pot. Whilst I do understand there is a renaissance of desire to develop a sense of national identity around the country’s efforts in WWI, I still can’t get past the inescapable elements of glorifying imperialist warfare that must attend commemorating that particular conflict. My letter below:
Commemorations
Amongst all the debate about 82 million dollars on a Gallipoli memorial in Wellington no-one has the temerity to talk about the value of commemorating Gallipoli at all. We should not forget that 2,721 young, mostly working class, men were sent by their own government to Gallipoli to be senselessly slaughtered in a war on the other side of the world that had absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to position a number of armaments companies to become future industrial giants. Lest we forget. However, that is a far cry from glorifying what went on. Ten men per day died during the Gallipoli campaign. Little more than three years later 130 men, women, and children per day died over a two month period in New Zealand during the great flu epidemic of 1918; by far and away New Zealand’s worst loss-of-life event in our history. And in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 67 years ago this week, more than 200,000 civilians died in just two days. Let’s instead have a memorial to peace, which has stopped the use of atom bombs since 1945, and to progress, which has seen medical science all but eliminate the scourge of epidemics.
@Dave Munro – great letter. I share your disappointment. Whilst I can understand Baby Boomers feeling unable to challenge wartime decision making (like challenging the authority of your parents), I am completely bemused that Generation X-> have embraced a kind of nostalgic nationalism for war and glory.
Also, thank you for the spiked article link. I had previously read excerpts from a lot of the material he referenced but it was so long ago that I was struggling to put my finger on a lot of it. That article nails the point home and makes me feel more sick and upset and full of rage at the ignorance of the apologists.
@John W – of course I agree regarding the abandonment of nuclear power. You would be surprised at the strength of the feeling across all sections of Japanese society that it should be abandoned. We got well into the extremely hot Japanese summer without any of the nuclear reactors being restarted.
I am not so blown away by the claims made in the naturalnews article though. It is simply not true that there is a media blackout about reactor 4 in Japan. I am sure you are aware that about a month ago, they switched off the main cooling system for the pool and the back-up cooling system failed to start. The temperature in the pool was steadily rising (it got to about 46 degrees, and needed to get to approx 67 before the rods were expected to start melting) and it was widely reported here. But nobody panicked.
The seriousness of Fukushima can be channeled into downplaying what is a media blackout, but it appear that many of the facts and potential ramifications of the Fukushima event have been actively kept out of the media. There are many reports of this.
Whatever a “media blackout” actually means is probably not that relevant when the seriousness of the situation for Japan, and the entire Northern hemisphere increases daily with radioactive fallout.
Should the minimalist experimental attempts to deal with the spent rods at No 4 reactor site not be successful, or the leaky cooling tanks deteriorate further, or the building already suffering massive damage suffers further collapse; the worldwide consequences predicted will be so horrific that all other information becomes of little consequence. The Fukushima site is in an area that has experienced earthquake and after shocks.
This major news story still receives little coverage.
A comment closer too the event.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/deadly-silence-on-fukushi_b_859241.html
Significant aspects of Chernobyl also have been kept under wraps.
“Plutonium has 15 isotopes. The longest-lived is plutonium 244, which takes 80.8 million years to decay to half its level of radioactivity. The most commonly-used isotopes — and those found at Fukushima — are plutonium 238, with a half life of 88 years; plutonium 239, with a half life of 24,000 years; and plutonium 240, with a half life of 6,500 years.”
Uranium is best left in its natural state of low concentration and widely distributed. Mankind has been irresponsible to the extreme.