Nagasaki mayor urges worldwide nuclear arms ban

[ShamelessHussy]

Source: Associated Press

In a speech given just after 11:02 a.m. — the time when a plutonium American bomb flattened Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945 — Mayor Tomihisa Taue said some progress had been made toward eliminating nuclear weaponry but more needed to be done.

He cited a speech by President Barack Obama in April calling on the world to rid itself of atomic weapons, but also noted a nuclear test blast by North Korea in May.

"We, as human beings, now have two paths before us. While one can lead us to a world without nuclear weapons, the other will carry us toward annihilation, bringing us to suffer once again the destruction experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 64 years ago," he said.

The Japanese government recognizes a total of about 150,000 victims of the atomic attack on Nagasaki, including those who have died from related injuries and illness in the years since.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i773D3u3VBF28ixZ4M15eVuXE6pwD99V6MT80

---

Never Forget so this is never repeated in our time.

[DeltaLitProf]

1. A warning from history

The use of these weapons renders all our talk about liberty, equality, the pursuit of happiness, the promotion of the general welfare MOOT. Let's never do it again.

[subsuelo]

2. The bombings were probably the worst acts of terrorism in history

[hack89]

3. Really? Based on what criteria?

Over 50 million civilians died in WWII - what distinguishes this small fraction from the others?

[Rage for Order]

5. Based on the fact that America did it!

Does there really need to be any more of a reason than that???


:sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

68. Is your position that nuclear bombing is no biggie? Or are you simply hung up on what number on the

list it should be?

Forest...trees.

[subsuelo]

6. Based on 70,000 people killed instantly in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in Nagasaki.

What other single act of terrorism has killed more people?

[Rage for Order]

8. Our terrorist fire-bombings of Tokyo and/or Dresden may have killed more

It's hard to say, really. I guess the question one has to answer is would you rather be incinerated instantly by a nuclear blast, or would you prefer to be set on fire and run around aflame for 60-90 seconds before collapsing and dying?

:shrug:

[subsuelo]

9. ok, singular attacks that killed the most people

1) Hiroshima
2) Tokyo firebombing
3) Nagasaki
4) Dresden - (but that was a week long or so wasn't it?)

As a matter of historical curiosity - what other single acts of terror might round out a top 10?

[slackmaster]

51. Up to 30,000 people were murdered in the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre

Does it make any real difference whether you call that a "singlar attack" or 30,000 separate crimes?

[No Elephants]

69. And the radioactiviy from the St. Bartholomew's massacre lasted how long?

[slackmaster]

77. Oppression of various European peoples by the Roman Catholic Church lasted for centuries

Including oppression of my own ancestors.

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

84. Verdun...

Verdun
Gettysburg
Vicksburg
Stalingrad
Battle of the Atlantic


But then again, that presupposes how narrowly or how broadly one interprets the valid definitions of the word, 'terrorism'...

[No Elephants]

67. Not all deaths from nuclear weapons are instantaneous. Some victims are ill for years. And then,

there's the radioactive soil......

[hack89]

10. So if the deaths had been spread out over days or months

it would have been better? Over a million Russians died in the siege of Leningrad due to disease and starvation - does the fact that it was done slowly place it lower on your moral scale? Does splitting up a horrendous act into lots of little pieces make it less abhorrent?

[subsuelo]

12. Many more deaths *were* spread out over days and months -- years even

I definitely see your point -- I did say "probably the worst terrorist attacks in history," realizing the criteria for qualifying what constitutes "worst" is arguable.

You asked on what basis, and I gave the basis. Going on that basis 'single attack resulting in most instant deaths' there isn't much to argue. The attack on Hiroshima killing 70-80,000 *instantly* was the worst in history.

Now if you don't like the basis, fine, I'm open to discussion. But it's difficult to comprehend placing various war atrocities, sieges and terrorist attacks onto some sort of moral 'scale' and start talking about which is 'better' than which. If our basis is numbers of people killed over a period of time, could we start talking about the African holocaust, the results of which perhaps have not yet ended (and arguably continue due to negligence)?

[hack89]

16. I guess my issue is

and it is not specifically aimed at you, is that Nagasaki and Hiroshima are frequently held up as uniquely horrific and evil events. I just don't see it - from my perspective is simply another common example of man's humanity against man. Once governments decided that killing a 100,000 (or more) civilians was necessary for victory, it makes no moral difference whether you kill them in a year, a month or a second.

[subsuelo]

19. I understand, but

I would still argue that these bombings *were* unique in the sheer number of people instantly killed. 2 bombs, 185,000 people dead. It's still the only time in history that nuclear bombs have been used in an offensive attack.

It's also rather unique for it's cowardice, in my view, but that's another matter for discussion

[LeftishBrit]

20. What is unique about nukes ...

is that they don't 'only' kill massive numbers of people at the time; they cause illness and death years later to people who seemed unscathed at the time, and even to many yet unborn. And can make whole areas uninhabitable far into the future.

I realize that people might not have realized this in 1945. Now we do know, we must never let it happen again.

[Robb]

28. Sadly not entirely unique in that regard

Consider depleted uranium, for example, which kills at a generational level. As do certain bioweapons, and a few chemical weapons.

Or salting (or otherwise ruining) crop fields, starvation follows.

Or consider rape, a popular favorite among marauding armies, which can utterly destroy the fabric of a culture in as little as 30 years. Killing women and children has a similar effect.

Warfare is horrific. Nukes are merely spectacularly so.

[subsuelo]

30. Well

I doubt that nobody in 1945 was aware of the effects and lingering damage to organisms that the weapon causes

[ShamelessHussy]

45. Then why did they take so many precations when building the bombs?

The scientist knew and voiced their concerns. Though, the public didn't know until much later due to national security.

[ShamelessHussy]

23. as already mentioned they keep killing and maining long after they've been dentonated

And in the case of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, they were used against a militarily defeated enemy that was interested in discussing terms for surrender.

[WriteDown]

31. If you say so...

I'm fairly sure that the Japanese had plenty of fight left when the bombs were dropped. These were the people that invented the kamikaze afterall and were fighting for their man-god emperor.

[subsuelo]

35. are you justifying murdering roughly 200,000 people, and causing harm to many more

I'd like to be clear on what grounds, if that's the case.

(I would hope there is more basis beyond what emperor the Japanese were fighting for, although in my view there is no justification)

[WriteDown]

36. We should have just stayed out of WWII

all together. Then we could have kept casualties at a bare minimum.

[hack89]

54. You are kidding I hope?

do you realize what the death toll would have been if Hitler could have completely implemented his final solution in Eastern Europe?

[WriteDown]

57. Yes, but they wouldn't be deaths at American hands...

and that is the important thing :).

[snagglepuss]

86. Droll.

very dry. very droll. :thumbsup:

[ShamelessHussy]

37. It's not just me, it is most of our military leaders who were in theater at that time who say so too

as well as many others.

please see the following link for examples...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[WriteDown]

43. Yeah...

there was no military propaganda back in WWII either. Eat that liberty cabbage, own those American eskimo dogs, be careful not to catch the liberty measles.

[ShamelessHussy]

44. I really don't know how to respond to snarks

I am trying to have a discussion on a critical issue of our time but some seem to only want to be snarky.

Oh well, I am not interested in that and will move on.

Good day, sir.

[No Elephants]

71. "Military propaganda" does not usually refer to the kind of thing Shameless Hussy linked.

"Eat that liberty cabbage" is just about the opposite of American military as high as Eisenhower saying America's actions were wrong.

You get opposites, right?

[WriteDown]

76. I seem to remember generals in WWII shouting things...

like "I shall return" or believing they were Roman generals reincarnated. These are men who lived for war and traditional confrontation. It is likely that many of them wanted to see the fighting continue.

[proteus_lives]

41. They were not defeated.

Why do you keep spreading this lie?

[hack89]

55. So how would you rank them

compared to say the rape of Nanking, the near genocide in China, the brutal enslavement and deaths of millions in South East Asia? Were they worst crimes? Equal?

[No Elephants]

70. The heinousness of one act does not diminish the heinousness of another act. However,

dropping bombs from the sky is arguably more cold blooded (and more irreversible) than a seige or hand to hand combat. There is no chance at all given the victims--no ability to prevail in combat, no ability to surrender or flee, etc.

But, getting hung up on which is worse obscures the issue, no?

[hack89]

73. The only thing that history has obscured is the millions of innocents

slaughtered by the Japanese. Is it wrong to ensure that they are remembered too and not just the people of Nagasaki or Hiroshima?

What chance was provided to the citizens of Nangking, Singapore, Manila and all the other cities in Asia where innocent men, women and children were killed in cold blood after they had surrendered?

[snagglepuss]

87. 500,000 civilians a month were killed by the Japanese. That is 2 Hiroshimas

and Nagasakis a month for the course of the war and that is a conservative figure.

During one 6 week siege of Nanking 200,000 civilains were slaughtered.

Hand to hand you say? Oh not quite that.

'Atrocious tortures were also inflicted on the captive men. "The Japanese not only disemboweled, decapitated, and dismembered victims but performed more excruciating varieties of torture.

Throughout the city they nailed prisoners to wooden boards and ran over them with tanks, crucified them to trees and electrical posts, carved long strips of flesh from them, and used them for bayonet practice.

At least one hundred men reportedly had their eyes gouged out and their noses and ears hacked off before being set on fire.

Another group of two hundred Chinese soldiers and civilians were stripped naked, tied to columns and doors of a school, and then stabbed by zhuizi -- special needles with handles on them -- in hundreds of points along their bodies, including their mouths, throats, and eyes. ...

The Japanese subjected large crowds of victims to mass incineration. In Hsiakwan a Japanese soldier bound Chinese captives together, ten at a time, and pushed them into a pit, where they were sprayed with gasoline and ignited." (Chang, The Rape of Nanking, pp. 87-88.)


"Women were killed in indiscriminate acts of terror and execution, but the large majority died after extended and excruciating gang-rape...

One eyewitness, Li Ke-hen, reported: "There are so many bodies on the street, victims of group rape and murder. They were all stripped naked, their breasts cut off, leaving a terrible dark brown hole; some of them were bayoneted in the abdomen, with their intestines spilling out alongside them; some had a roll of paper or a piece of wood stuffed in their vaginas" (quoted in Yin and Young, The Rape of Nanking, p. 195).

... Many young women were simply tied to beds as permanent fixtures accessible to any and all comers. When they became too weepy or too diseased to arouse desire, they were disposed of.

In alleys and parks lay the corpses of women who had been dishonored even after death by mutilation and stuffing." (Yin and Young, The Rape of Nanking, p. 195.)


... The Japanese drew sadistic pleasure in forcing Chinese men to commit incest -- fathers to rape their own daughters, brothers their sisters, sons their mothers ... those who refused were killed on the spot." (Chang, The Rape of Nanking, p. 95.)


http://www.gendercide.org/case_nanking.html

[IDFbunny]

39. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more.

[ShamelessHussy]

46. Actually you are wrong, though the point isn't just about numbers

It is also about the necessity of nuking a defeated nation interested in negotiating terms of surrender.

Not to mention the mass and indiscriminate targeting of innocent civilians, which is usually associated with the acts of TERRORIST today.

[slackmaster]

4. Worse than the Armenian Genocide by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 - 1923?

Just for starters. How about the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Or the Nazi Holocaust?

[subsuelo]

7. You're talking about acts of genocide

I'm talking about singular terrorist attacks.

[hack89]

11. How do you distinguish between acts of war and terrorist attacks?

or do you? And why is the fact that it happened in one attack particular significant?

[subsuelo]

13. Good question - how do you distinguish?

Let's say Al Qaeda or the Taliban or some other group we don't like attacks a couple of American cities with nuclear bombs. Would we consider those attacks "terrorist" or "acts of war"? (or both)

[slackmaster]

47. I guess it depends on what you mean by "singular"

:crazy:

[snagglepuss]

88. What's with this insistence with a singular act of terrorism. Are you then saying

the singular act that happened on 9/11 is more horrific than armies killing off 3000 people over the course of let's say a week?

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. I suspect you mean that they're the only ones you're comfortable to assign unequivocal blame for nt

[Robb]

26. Touché. nt

[proteus_lives]

17. You forget the Holocaust, the Soviet massacres of millions....

Communist China's slaughter of million's of it's own people.

And let's not forget the Decades long campaign in Asia by Japan that left millions dead, enslaved and raped.

Stop being ignorant, the bombings were a legitimate military operation in a declared war.

[subsuelo]

18. Oh, that's right -- declaring war legitimizes terrorist attacks on anything and everything

:crazy:

[proteus_lives]

40. You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of Total War.

They weren't terrorist attacks. That's all there is to it.

[subsuelo]

48. Excuses excuses (nt)

[proteus_lives]

49. What you call excuses.....

Are what people with common sense call facts.

[subsuelo]

56. "Common sense" doesn't apply to savage acts of terrorism

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cowardly terrorist crimes. We should be ashamed of our involvement in crimes like these, rather than making excuses for it.

[proteus_lives]

61. No they weren't and I'm not ashamed of it and neither is most of the country.

The Enola Gay is in the Air and Space museum, no shame there.

I've read about the event for years and listened to all the arguments. And I came to the conclusion that it was the best decision to make when confronted by the other options.

The only people who should have felt shame were the members of the Japanese government that refused to surrender and forced Truman's hand.

[Bill McBlueState]

79. "The Enola Gay is in the Air and Space museum"

There are a lot of Holocaust museums. :shrug:

[proteus_lives]

80. Really, comparing the two?

Wow, you really are ignorant of history aren't you?

To explain the difference should I use big words or pictures? Which would you prefer?

[Bill McBlueState]

81. really, that's what you took from that?

sigh.

[proteus_lives]

82. Enlighten me please.

What was I suppose to take from your post?

[Bill McBlueState]

83. that having something in a museum

is not evidence that nobody is ashamed of it.

[proteus_lives]

85. I know there are people ashamed of it.

I disagree but I acknowledge their position.

But the difference between the Enola Gay in the Air and Space museum and a Holocaust museum is the way it's structured. The Holocaust is a monument to those who died and a grim testament of man's inhumanity to man. While the Enola Gay is displayed as part of the history of WWII and the United States. There is no shaming or political motive attached to it.

[No Elephants]

72. It was an act of war, moral or not. Calling everything we don't like "terrorism" is not helpful.

I commend Obama from ending official use of the term "War on terrrorism."

[kgnu_fan]

15. War is outdated method of solving problems - no more nukes nt

[LeftishBrit]

21. k&r

[JonQ]

22. Sure, we could ban them

once russia has dismantled their last one, and pakistan, china, north korea (soon if not already) and all the rest.

The only thing worse than everyone having nukes is to have only a few, of the wrong nations, possessing them.

Also, if japan doesn't like getting nuked by the US a good way to avoid that is to simply avoid launching surprise attacks against us, brutalizing our POWs, killing 10s of millions of innocent civilians in a failed attempt at imperialism, and claiming you will never surrender regardless of the cost to your own population.

I think avoiding all that will prevent another nuclear attack.

Win win.

[LeftishBrit]

25. They have avoided such things for the last 60 years or so.

And the call was for a worldwide ban on nukes - not just the USA. He specifically mentioned North Korea.

It's not just a question of Japan not getting nuked in the future; it's a question of ANYONE not getting nuked in the future. Another nuke would probably mean goodbye to the human race, if not all life on planet earth, in any case.

[WriteDown]

32. Easy to avoid when you're limited to...

a SDF only.

[JonQ]

52. And what guarantee is there

if we dismantle all ours, that everyone else will act likewise?

I'd rather see a nuclear armed US and North Korea than merely a nuclear armed North Korea.

Seriously, going by past history what are the odds that kim il jong (or his successor) will give up nuclear weapons in order to make friends with japan?

[subsuelo]

27. The U.S. *was* - obviously - "the wrong nation" to possess them

Why?

Because they got used

[WriteDown]

29. You're right....

If the Germans had been a little quicker then they would have been the ones to use them and we could claim the moral high ground. I wish every day that that could have happened. :eyes:

[subsuelo]

33. If the Germans had been quicker and used them

Then they would likely have been the ones writing most propaganda history, and Germans on internet message boards would be going around justifying their use

[WriteDown]

34. If you say so...

I wish that Albert Einstein never lived. What an evil, twisted man.

[snagglepuss]

38. LOL.. nt

[slackmaster]

50. Certainly the Germans or the Japanese wouldn't have dreamed of using one if they had one

:crazy:

[subsuelo]

58. Only *one* country we can be absolutely certain did dream of attacking with nuclear bombs

You proud of that?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

64. Both Germany and Japan had nuclear weapons programs

I dread to think what would have happened if those morally depraved and racist regimes had had enough time to develop the atomic bombs they were dreaming about using to kill millions of people since before the war. You can bet your bottom dollar that Japan would have used them more than twice. Their plans to sanitize China of the people they considered sub-animals that lived there, aka the Chinese people, would have been much simpler for them to carry out. And the German hatred for the Slavic people and their plans to create a German wonderland for German people in eastern Europe as described in Mein Kampf by killing all the inhabitants would have probably come to full fruition. We know that Japan and Germany already engaged in racial cleansing and genocide without the bombs through more conventional means. The development of nuclear weapons which were in the works for both countries would have been a boon to their already murderous efforts.

You are acting as though Germany and Japan were normal states, that might or might not have taken advantage of the opportunity to use more efficient means to kill additional millions after having already done so. They were the most brutal, sick, sadistic, mass-murderous, morally depraved, genocidal, racist, fascistic, and evil regimes the world has ever known.

[slackmaster]

65. Yes, I am proud of how my country conducted itself in World War II

From start to finish. My grandfather, my stepfather, and an uncle all served in the United States Navy during the war.

The war had to be ended. No matter how it ended was going to be ugly. Using the Bomb had one positive effect that remains with us today - Nobody can say they don't know what would happen if a nuclear weapon is used on a city.

And nobody has used one since 1945.

My family has always had people serving in the military. They as much as civilian populations everywhere have been protected from harm because of the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

History can't be un-done. It's not useful to second-guess decisions that were made after having our country and much of the rest of the world embroiled in a war for many years that killed tens of millions of people. The best we can do is learn from it.

If you want to drum up and wallow in guilt for things that were done (I assume) before you were born, be my guest, but don't expect everyone else to join you.

[snagglepuss]

90. So now your conflating Truman with Dr Strangelove? Please cite your

source for that eyeopener.

[JonQ]

53. They were used twice

to bring an end to the greatest war in human history.


And for 4 years we possessed hundreds and were the only nation to to so, and refrained from any further uses.

Do you think if, for instance, the USSR were to have a monopoly on nuclear power in 1945 they would have shown any hesitation to use them, or the threat of nuclear attack, to expand their empire?

No I don't think the US was wrong in 1945. We were at war, and they brought about peace, in a less costly manner (for BOTH sides) than an invasion would have.

[subsuelo]

59. more excuses

I've heard all the state propaganda. I guess I'm just surprised so many people still believe it

[JonQ]

60. Yeah, why didn't we use nerf bullets too

I mean, if we were going to start a war with japan for no reason (that they were perfectly willing to end at any moment) all the while slaughtering millions of chinese civilians just for the hell of it, the least we could have done was to be nice about it.

It's not like an invasion would have been devastating to both sides, they were literally laying down the red carpet for our troops and getting some tasty appetizers ready for when they landed (who wants chex mix?).

The bombing was completely unnecessary.

[Blandocyte]

24. But Prohibition didn't work, and the war on drugs doesn't work

so what's this claptrap about a ban? :sarcasm:

[robcon]

42. Banning nuclear bombs would be a disaster.

The technology for producing bombs is known, and can't be "unlearned."

Imagine the power a rogue nation or group would have if they were the only country or group in the world with nuclear bombs. Imagine how much those countries/groups would spend in time and money to try to develop the bomb if the "civilized world" stopped having them.

I think a nuclear ban treaty would lead to world war within 10 years - perhaps nuclear war, at least for one side of that war.

[LeftishBrit]

66. While I see your point...

I think there is more chance of terrorist groups getting hold of nukes if they *are* 'lying around', so to speak. Creating bombs from scratch, even if you know the technique, is likely to be expensive and labour-intensive; most terrorist groups won't have the resources. 'Rogue nations' are more of a potential worry here, but if they are not already nuclear it will take them a significant amount of time and resources to develop nukes and be very difficult without some other countries' co-operation (otherwise, why are not all/most countries already nuclear?)

Meanwhile, there is the risk both of terrorist groups hijacking existing nukes, and of accidents.

The proposal was not for unilateral disarmament by America, but for a universal ban. Probably a pipe-dream right now, but IMO a goal to work for.

[marshall]

62. Considering that madman in North Korea is breathing down their necks, I can see his point

Maybe President Clinton can fly back over there and try to talk some more sense into Kim's demented head.

[Mudoria]

63. He and the Mayor of Nanking should exchange visits

and call for the end of nuclear weapons and genocide.

[chrisa]

74. More efforts should actually be put into

technology to shoot nuclear warheads down.

Countries like the US would claim that all of their nukes are gone, but still keep a few because they know that countries like Russia would do the same.

[Odin2005]

75. Anyone with a basic understanding of Game Theory knows this won't work.

The lack of trust and temptation to renege and leave the other side in the lurch means the choice is always going to be "defect".

[JonQ]

78. Plus they become substantially more valuable

when you are the only nation to possess them. Two countries have nukes and they can counter each other, so there is a grudging peace. Only one country has them and it's neighbors better watch out.

So the incentive to hide a few would be too great to overcome while every other nation was dismantling theirs.

And since every nation would have that same thought all we'd have was empty promises.

[Dark]

89. It will never happen until all nuclear nations are developed, civilized democracies.

and even then...

[bejamin wood]

92. I tend to agree

I really don't know where it ends, but my gut says the stone age... again.

[midnight]

91. 16th rec.