DP: Why was U.S. envoy in Hiroshima?

[nonniey]

The reason the U.S. ambassador to Japan attended Friday's memorial ceremony at Hiroshima was, the embassy said, to pay respect to "all the victims of World War II."

"For the sake of future generations," declared Ambassador John V. Roos, "we must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons."

How about a world in which memory of a decisive conflict of the 20th century is not reduced to a parable of moral equivalence, as too many Japanese still seem eager to insist?

"Japan and the United States are not so far apart," Professor Kazumi Mizumoto of Hiroshima City University told The New York Times this week. "Maybe they should offer a joint apology of all the terrible things that happened in that war."

Maybe not. While the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undoubtedly among the "terrible things" that happen in war, that doesn't mean they were wrong or didn't save lives. Yet most of those in attendance Friday seemed to consider those bombings not only wrong but grotesquely immoral.

Does Ambassador Roos? President Obama? If not, why did Roos break tradition and attend?

Click link for rest of article

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15698747

[Sticksboi05]

Nagasaki never had to happen if they had swallowed their pride and listened to their Prime Minister in the first place.

[nonniey]

Apologists disgust me and every year more and more of them crop up as the numbers of those with first hand knowledge of the situation dwindle.

[twa]

Apologists disgust me and every year more and more of them crop up as the numbers of those with first hand knowledge of the situation dwindle.

Yep, killing is a terrible thing,but it beats dying most days of the week.

[IHOPSkins]

Lives were SAVED by dropping the Bomb(s).....on Both sides

An invasion of Japan would have been VERY costly

[Hubbs]

Gotta walk a fine line here, IMO. On the one hand, people have to remember that we used nukes in context of our last true total war. (Last in the sense that it's the last one that happened; hopefully it will also be our last, period.) The bombing of cities full of civilians was commonplace. It's absolutely nothing like, say, nuking Baghdad today. And dropping the nukes absolutely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives, both Japanese and American.

On the other hand, one of the most important developments of modern warfare is the notion that civilian casualties should be avoided when possible. And I know, I know, this idea isn't nearly as popular in some parts of the world as it is in others. Neither is gender equality. Neither are free elections. Neither are civil liberties. Yet we celebrate these things as making us different from the dark shadows of tyranny and oppression that exist in so many other nations. I don't know if we'd be able to afford worrying about civilian casualties if we ever found ourselves in another total war. But I see little harm in declaring that we very much hope we'll have the luxury of that worry.

[zoony]

nukes were the only way the Japanese warlords could surrender without losing face.

Otherwise, they would have all gladly died, and sacrificed the majority of the Japanese civilian population.

It was also just about the only thing that could have possibly satisfied the American public's need for revenge.

Imagine a US land invasion of Japan that cost 1 million US lives. Now ask yourself, where would Japan be today? They'd still be licking the dog**** off our boots, that's where.

The bomb is the absolute best thing that could have happened to the Japanese. To imply otherwise is an ignorant position, case closed.

.....

[Burgundy Burner]

We should never, ever apologize for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Never.

I say "never" because of this nagging feeling that the current administration will do so at some point in time.

[Henry]

It's one thing to acknowledge that dropping the bombs were a necessary evil that we all hope to never have to do again. It's quite another to apologize for it.

I sure hope we don't do the latter.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

If we apologize for that, I swear to God I'll lose it. THEY were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked and brought us into the war...you mess with the bull, you get the horns

[Larry]

If we apologize for that, I swear to God I'll lose it. THEY were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked and brought us into the war...you mess with the bull, you get the horns

Last I checked, the Japanese attacked a US military base.

I seem to remember a few people round here claiming that attacking civilians is morally different.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that if someone were to use a nuclear weapon in an American city, tomorrow, we'd somehow manage to be morally outraged about it. And I don't think we'd care a whole lot if the people who set off the nuke responded with "well, you deserve it, because years ago, your country did X".

----------

That said, though, yeah, things were different, then. In many ways.

Personally, my own "what if?" theory says that if the US hadn't used those nukes, and had tried to go the invasion route, instead, that Japan would be a part of China, today.

(My reasoning is that any attempted invasion on Japan would have had to stage from China, and would have required Chinese participation. And my gut feeling that if China had successfully invaded and conquered Japan, after WW2, they would have kept it, just like the Russians kept the territory they "liberated".)

In short, in my own, personal game of comparing reality vs theory, Japan is much better off in this world, than in a world where the bombs weren't used.

----------

My own, personal, opinion about "the bombs"?

I regret that they were necessary. But they were.

And if I had a time machine, and I had the ability to go back in time and stop it? I wouldn't.

I'm content with the way the world looks, today. I'll stick with the way things are.

[Larry]

How about a world in which memory of a decisive conflict of the 20th century is not reduced to a parable of moral equivalence, as too many Japanese still seem eager to insist?

Granted, I'm probably debating semantics, here, but every time I see the phrase "moral equivalence" being used, I seem to have a really weird reaction.

I think it's because, as near as I can tell, the definition of "moral equivalence" is:

"The belief that the morality of an action doesn't change, depending on whether I'm doing it to someone else, or if someone else is doing it to me".

And my weird reaction is because every time the phrase is used, it's being hurled as an insult.

:halo:

[CrabR]

Japan was defeated we had already intercepted Japanese peace feelers through Russia. It was a matter of time before they surrendered. We could have announced we had the bomb or even demonstrated one

That being said I would have nuked all the Japanese Islands to save 1 American life

[zoony]

Japan was defeated we had already intercepted Japanese peace feelers through Russia. It was a matter of time before they surrendered. We could have announced we had the bomb or even demonstrated one

This is not true. In the least.

Whoever thinks or would even imply such a thing does not know the Japanese.

[Sticksboi05]

Japan was defeated we had already intercepted Japanese peace feelers through Russia. It was a matter of time before they surrendered. We could have announced we had the bomb or even demonstrated one

That being said I would have nuked all the Japanese Islands to save 1 American life

Uhh, no. They were not even remotely close to surrendering and after Nagasaki only surrendered because of the plea of their Prime Minister. The Japanese had more pride than humans should have. They were going to fight until there was almost nothing left.

[nonniey]

This is not true. In the least.

Whoever thinks or would even imply such a thing does not know the Japanese.

Yet that is the urban myth many (maybe most) apologists hang their hat on. You know how it works, urban myths beget postings, which then become references and before long it is common knowledge that that is what happened.

[Hubbs]

apologists

[HailGreen28]

Last I checked, the Japanese attacked a US military base.

I seem to remember a few people round here claiming that attacking civilians is morally different.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that if someone were to use a nuclear weapon in an American city, tomorrow, we'd somehow manage to be morally outraged about it. And I don't think we'd care a whole lot if the people who set off the nuke responded with "well, you deserve it, because years ago, your country did X".

For Pearl, it was just the sneak attack part that riled us up. We weren't at war with Japan, from the public's perspective they sneak attacked us out of the blue. And the Japanese commited more than their fair share of atrocities against civilians, from Nanking to Indonesia. Of course, stuff like the Bataan Death March shouldn't be marginalized because the Japanese did it to our soldiers, not civilians. An atrocity is an atrocity.

Your nuke example: If we get into an actual war with China over say Korea, and they drop a nuke on LA, I'm sure we'd be outraged. But we would be even more outraged (if possible) if just out of the blue say today, China nuked LA with zero provocation.

Personally, my own "what if?" theory says that if the US hadn't used those nukes, and had tried to go the invasion route, instead, that Japan would be a part of China, today.

(My reasoning is that any attempted invasion on Japan would have had to stage from China, and would have required Chinese participation. And my gut feeling that if China had successfully invaded and conquered Japan, after WW2, they would have kept it, just like the Russians kept the territory they "liberated".)

Operation Downfall was to be staged from Okinawa. No Chinese support needed. Maybe the Commonwealth would have used Chinese bases, like Formosa, but Chiang Kai-shek had his own problems, and the Communists weren't in position to do anything to affect Japan one way or the other.

Agree with your main points and all the rest.

[nonniey]

Apologists in this context are those who fall under following:

1) Those who agree or espouse apologizing for dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan

2) Those who now think it was morally wrong to drop the bombs

3) Those that think this was an an evil act that stains the reputation of the United States.

[Madison Redskin]

I think Hiroshima was a necessary tragedy. It was necessary because it hastened the end of the bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind and saved many lives. However, it was ALSO a tragedy because many innocent civilians died in the bombing. If the bombing was a tragedy, even if a necessary one, why is it that people object to the envoy's presence?

[skinfan133]

Japan is the #3 economy in the world today, it was almost #1 two decades ago, all thanks to US occupation and investment.

Japan post-US invasion would be a smoldering wasteland devoid of any substantial population or government, a veritable Somalia of the pacific. The Japanese people would have ceased to be a nation, and the United States would have lost nearly an entire generation of young men.

I am 100% confident that the dropping the Atomic Bomb was the correct decision, and it was a decision that was not made lightly. Literally millions of lives on both sides were saved, and as a result their children exist today. My grandfather probably would have died in an invasion of Japan, so I can safely say that I am here today as a result of the atomic bomb.

[street_lyte]

I'm proud of all you guys, you all really know what you're talking about.

What sucks is that there are a TON of people here in the US who have NO CLUE about WW2, let alone the Japanese culture at the time.

People who say we shouldn't have nuked Japan make me wanna punch them in the face.

[zoony]

Last I checked, the Japanese attacked a US military base.

I seem to remember a few people round here claiming that attacking civilians is morally different.

what Japanese military targets were left? there were none.

Important to note that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not chosen arbitrarily, either.

[Sticksboi05]

Nagasaki was a backup choice. It was supposed to be Kokura.

[Madison Redskin]

People who say we shouldn't have nuked Japan make me wanna punch them in the face.

It was necessary, but that might be taking things just a tad bit too far. I think reasonable people would at least question the decision to drop a nuclear bomb on ANY city, even if they should ultimately conclude it may be necessary in some situations (as it was in WWII IMO). People who think it was a no-brainer that warrants little discussion make me uneasy.