- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
HIROSHIMA, Japan, April 11 (Reuters) - John Kerry on Monday became the first U.S. secretary of state to pay his respects at Hiroshima’s memorial to victims of the 1945 U.S. nuclear attack, raising speculation that U.S. President Barack Obama might make his own visit in May.
Following the visit by Kerry and his counterparts from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies, the ministers issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to building a world without nuclear arms, but said the push had been made more complex by North Korea’s repeated provocations and by the worsening security in Syria and Ukraine.
Kerry toured the Hiroshima Peace Memorial and Museum, whose haunting displays include photographs of badly burned victims, the tattered and stained clothes they wore and statues depicting them with flesh melting from their limbs.
While he is not the highest-ranking U.S. official to have toured the museum and memorial park, a distinction that belongs to then-U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi in 2008, Kerry is the most senior executive branch official to visit.
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
Regardless of the debate on use of these weapons or going with the Operation Downfall plan (which has been debated ad nauseam) we cannot go back and undo anything.
I can appreciate Kerry going to the memorial but would not call it "historic." It was a reasonable gesture though on our part, if anything showing how far we have come in trade and relations since the time frame of being such determined enemies. Probably much more to do and it will take time given what really happened between our two nations over all of WWII (and before.)
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
I have no problem with the visit, or any future visit by an American President, so long as we never apologize.
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
I am 100% in favor of the decision to drop the bombs instead of invade...
I think that's a false dichotomy.
Operation Downfall would have been a massive bloodbath, especially for the Japanese.
Arguably by dropping the nukes we actually saved quite a few lives.
Interesting that Kerry would visit, but probably not a huge deal.
arguably is right, since they actually surrendered due to the much larger impending soviet invasion. The bombs only gave the emperor an excuse to negotiate with the americans more favorable terms for his own family's security. Part of this deal was pretending the bombs left them with no choice
The Soviets had nothing to invade with. The Red Navy's Pacific Fleet's biggest warship was a cruiser. They might have gotten Honshu and definitely, but that's about it.
The guys who wanted to fight on even after being nuked twice sure as **** weren't going to surrender to communists.
You can build all the tanks you want, but tanks can't swim very far or fly.
Along just one front, they had 3700 aircraft, 80 subs and numerous other naval support. Could ally tanks have swum across to normandy? No, it's the same concept. They had 1.5 million ground troops which is far beyond the ability of japan to defend. Again this was just their northern front
They conquered manchuria in short order, in fact in between the two atomic bombs. The soviets then landed and captured the kuril islands attached to japan's main land, which remain in their control. Only then did japan surrender, a full month after the bombs
Stalin was never impressed by the bombs, which did very little damage to japan militarily. It did not impress much of japan's own high command either, as they attempted a coup on the emperor to prevent a surrender
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government.
Not many other options...
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
Read more @: John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial
I will always contend that we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan, but this is none-the-less a historic and symbolic gesture from the US government. [/FONT]
Of-course you think forcing Japan to surrender saving Americans lives was the wrong thing to do....
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065761222 said:Japan had two choices. First, they chose to start WWII with the US, as they attacked unannounced and lost face.
Then, they after being warned Japan chose to accept the dropping of two atomic bombs on their nation.
No additional allied soldier or naval personnel needed to die in an invasion of Japan just so some people can cry over the US dropping an atom bomb.
Nuking Japan saved allied, and probably Japanese lives.
War over...
One would have to recognize that Americans aren't the only real human beings on Earth to understand that it isn't as simple as that.
These people who oppose Truman's decision should put themselves in his place.
Had he decided not to use those weapons and thousands of US Soldiers died during a invasion those lives would be on his head
Or maybe you can explain what was so complicated about Truman's decision
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?