I would love for Obama to visit Hiroshima on Universal Peace Day. I would love to visit Hiroshima on Universal Peace Day.
I saw a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain", about the bombings in Japan, and I have never, ever cried so hard in my life. It made me question my belief in God, made me wonder how the survivors could still believe in God themselves. The stories they tell are beyond horrifying and heartbreaking, and the images the same. The way they've been treated both by America and their own country is despicable. I have never understood the lasting impact such a horrible weapon can make until I saw this movie, and I urge everyone to see it. It's so important to understand, and not forget those days and those people.
One of the best documentaries I've ever seen is White Light, Black Rain, about the bombings and the Hibakusha (survivors). I can't recommend it enough. It shows what nuclear weapons really DO to people. So you shouldn't eat while watching it.
I'm no neocon, but it bears mention that recent history seems to indicate that the best deterrent to nuclear war is a democratic system of governance. I'd love nuclear disarmament, but I think a more pragmatic approach would be to work against authoritarianism and promoting an understanding of the potential human cost of war in the nuclear age.
@thegogglesdonothing: There are a LOT of problems with democratic peace theory--not least that the only country to have used a nuclear missile was a democracy (and that democracies can and do go to war with one another--see India and Pakistan).
What I find problematic about nuclear disarmament--even though I really agree with it, particularly in the context of the extraordinary number of missiles the US and Russia have, and how decrepit and dangerous many Russian ones are--is that the knowledge of how to make nuclear missiles can never be erased now that it's in the public domain. It's just something to think about, not an argument against even very severe disarmament.
@J.D.Regent: it's the old "no two democracies have ever been to war against one another" claptrap that everyone gets drilled into their head in international relations 1001.
@rah29: also, i think it's important that some theorists have pointed out that since THE BOMB was developed, rather than making wars less appealing, more wars seemed to happen- proxy wars, that is. so actually having the most dangerous weapon ever just meant that wars were fought on a lesser level, and more often.
also, war itself has evolved. urban geurrilla warfare is where it's at- so really, breaking ak-47s would be the better (even more impossible) goal.
@southernbitch: I forgot about that--it's been a while since I took IR theory, all of which I have now forced out of my brain due to its general irrelevance to actual international relations! But you're totally right, I remember that point being raised, especially when realists say 'MAD works, look, the Cold War never turned hot.' Ummm, it did. Just only in dusty/swampy countries full of dark-skinned people who talk funny. It's not like they count.
A while ago I read an absolutely gut-wrenching account of a woman who survived the Hiroshima attack. It's here: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-05-voa38.cfm
@Schmalerie: Horrifying. I'm especially upset about the image of the "river below" the railroad tracks being covered in dead bodies. No water to be seen.
I'm actually tearing up. This is a subject I tried to avoid when I taught in Japan-- not very successfully, might I add. The English book I taught from had a chapter about the Hiroshima bombings. It was the most surreal feeling to have to stand up in front of a class of Japanese students and talk about how my country bombed their country.
"...including one man, 93-year-old Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who survived Little Boy while on a business trip, and returned home to Nagasaki just in time to be hit with Fat Man."
Geez. Awful luck to be in both places, and yet astounding luck to survive both.
I was reading an essay on German physicists and their reaction when Americans created an atom bomb, and one of them wrote that "war crimes are only for the losers of the war". Japanese soldiers committed heinous atrocities in China, and Japanese historiography is notoriously murky about them, but I wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are taught in American schools?
@sara-without-an-h: That they were totally necessary to end the war, because the Japanese wouldn't surrender, and that without using them a million US soldiers would have died.
@sara-without-an-h: I wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are taught in American schools?
In my experience, gradually. You start in elementary school by reading Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes and having this vague, nebulous sense that a Really Bad Thing Was Done, and then as you get into high school history, you're taught basically that it was a last-ditch effort, that at least it worked to end the War (also a Bad Thing), that it had really horrible consequences that eluded foresight, and that it shouldn't be done again. Depending on the school, teacher, and state curriculum, you may get class time really to debate whether it ever should have been done or not, and if Truman was right to drop the bomb. These conversations are like most Big World Events discussions among 15-16 year olds, but it's good for the kids involved when they happen.
@sara-without-an-h: from my experience, I distinctly remember being taught that the US dropped the atomic bombs to avoid having to deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers, fresh back from Europe, to fight a conventional war. And to prevent Russia's involvement in the Eastern theatre. (this was the nuanced AP US history treatment, at least)
We also had to read Hiroshima in 7th grade, which goes into great detail on the horrors of the atomic bomb. Basically it was "this was a horrible, horrible thing, but it was the right thing to do." I honestly don't know if I believe that or not.
@sara-without-an-h: I agree with Norton - in elementary school we were taught that the Americans basically had no choice and they were dropped because it was the only way to end WW2. This was in the early 90s, so I'm not sure if the tone has changed since then.
Edit: And when I think about it, this was also the tone during high school. It wasn't until college when I began to hear dissenting points of view from teachers.
@Norton: aaand thats basically the argument for any war or massacre: "it was completely necessary to go to war and kill all those people in order to make peace".
im reading this amazing history of ww2 right now called human smoke- it has tons of telegrams from the war dept to roosevelt to churchill and so on and so forth. it's chilling to read what they were doing and how they were justifying it. not to mention, even, the other horrors perpetuated by all sides against civilians.
@sara-without-an-h: In New Zealand, we learned about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a prelude to learning about the Rainbow Warrior, French testing at Mururoa Atoll, and former PM David Lange telling Jerry Falwell (I think) during the Oxford debates on Nuclear Weaponry that he could 'smell the uranium on [Falwell's] breath'. New Zealand is an historically anti-nuclear country in both legislation and public opinion, and it's something that we're a wee bit proud of, so the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often addressed as an issue separate to that of World War II, which I guess is interesting, given that we are a South Pacific nation...
Am I the only person who doesn't understand why the US apparently has the moral authority to tell OTHER countries not to develop nukes while simultaneously stockpiling thousands of our own? I mean, when has "Do as I say, not as I do," ever worked?
@tonightineed is actually Mrs. Ziegler-Spock: I rewatched that recently, and I wondered if California and Hawaii would like to rescind their offer to Alaska after the Palin debacle.
@cate3710: Far more than that. At the height of the Cold War they had about 10 times more than they needed for a secure second strike capability (which makes you wonder what the idea of a 'nuclear deterrent' really is all about--especially since virtually all of the DoD's nuclear strategies were for first-strike attacks, not retaliation).
The scarier ones are the ones that Russia has lost, or allowed to fall into disrepair. That's some seriously frightening shit.
07/14/09
I saw a documentary called "White Light, Black Rain", about the bombings in Japan, and I have never, ever cried so hard in my life. It made me question my belief in God, made me wonder how the survivors could still believe in God themselves. The stories they tell are beyond horrifying and heartbreaking, and the images the same. The way they've been treated both by America and their own country is despicable. I have never understood the lasting impact such a horrible weapon can make until I saw this movie, and I urge everyone to see it. It's so important to understand, and not forget those days and those people.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
What I find problematic about nuclear disarmament--even though I really agree with it, particularly in the context of the extraordinary number of missiles the US and Russia have, and how decrepit and dangerous many Russian ones are--is that the knowledge of how to make nuclear missiles can never be erased now that it's in the public domain. It's just something to think about, not an argument against even very severe disarmament.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
also, war itself has evolved. urban geurrilla warfare is where it's at- so really, breaking ak-47s would be the better (even more impossible) goal.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Like people are saying in the thread below, I can't believe we are taught in American schools that this was a justifiable action.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Geez. Awful luck to be in both places, and yet astounding luck to survive both.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
In my experience, gradually. You start in elementary school by reading Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes and having this vague, nebulous sense that a Really Bad Thing Was Done, and then as you get into high school history, you're taught basically that it was a last-ditch effort, that at least it worked to end the War (also a Bad Thing), that it had really horrible consequences that eluded foresight, and that it shouldn't be done again. Depending on the school, teacher, and state curriculum, you may get class time really to debate whether it ever should have been done or not, and if Truman was right to drop the bomb. These conversations are like most Big World Events discussions among 15-16 year olds, but it's good for the kids involved when they happen.
07/14/09
We also had to read Hiroshima in 7th grade, which goes into great detail on the horrors of the atomic bomb. Basically it was "this was a horrible, horrible thing, but it was the right thing to do." I honestly don't know if I believe that or not.
07/14/09
Edit: And when I think about it, this was also the tone during high school. It wasn't until college when I began to hear dissenting points of view from teachers.
07/14/09
im reading this amazing history of ww2 right now called human smoke- it has tons of telegrams from the war dept to roosevelt to churchill and so on and so forth. it's chilling to read what they were doing and how they were justifying it. not to mention, even, the other horrors perpetuated by all sides against civilians.
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
The scarier ones are the ones that Russia has lost, or allowed to fall into disrepair. That's some seriously frightening shit.
07/14/09
http://nukeometer.com/