John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial

[Deuce]

After the coup attempt fell apart.

The country was breaking, and the Soviets declaring war and invading Manchuria was yet another nail in the coffin. The Japanese government was actively looking for ways to surrender and save face.

 

[Fenton]

It's not like accuracy was of much importantce. Just hit a base somewhere that's not surrounded by so many civilians.




Bombing one or two targets to demonstrate how badly outclassed the enemy is by your new, unprecedented weapon is not remotely comparable to a potentially species-ending hypothetical exchange with Russia.

And I'm really shocked that I have to explain that to you.

They DID Bomb two targes.

You realize that the Japanese were outright hated by the time they dropped those two Bombs and for good reason.

Plus the fact we had to drop the second bomb at all to get then to surrender should clue you in on why a demonstration wouldn't have worked.

 

[Fenton]

The country was breaking, and the Soviets declaring war and invading Manchuria was yet another nail in the coffin. The Japanese government was actively looking for ways to surrender and save face.

Really? Then why didn't they surrender after the first explosion? ?

 

[Mr Person]

It had nothing to do with us viewing the Japanese or anyone else as less than human.

That view is necessary to see this as a completely exculpatory justification:

saving American lives.

If instantly murdering over a hundred thousand Japanese non-combatants and causing the deaths of more from radiation poisoning and genetic defects is OK because it "saves American lives", then there is an inescapable and necessary principle that American lives are more important than Japanese lives. That, in turn, necessarily means there is something inherently more valuable about a homo sapien born on American soil than on Japanese soil, to the person who embraces this rationale.

It had to do with ending the War

That's why, way back at the beginning of this exchange, I responded to TheDemSocialist's remark that he says he would "always contend we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan" with the following:

I don't contend either way. I'm just damn glad I was not in Eisenhower's position.

Murder hundreds of thousands of civilians (instantly and more over time) vs. Give orders leading to the death of several million US & Japanese servicemen, and likely a TON of civilians anyway?

If there's a hell, you're burning either way if you have to make that choice.

(Of course, we caused a similar death toll when we fire-bombed Dresden; a war crime if there ever was one).

In what I said there, I made clear (1) I know the purpose was about stopping the war, (2) I recognize that it was likely a far larger number of military deaths would result from a land invasion on both sides, (3) quite a lot of civilian lives, potentially the same would be lost invading, and (4) we killed a similar amount of civilians in Dresden without nukes.

But I also recognize that it is still a horrific choice to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of civilian non-combatants for extermination, even if to save a million.

Meanwhile, you want it to be black and white. For you it was just fine because it ended the war and saved American lives. For me, it was damned if you do, damned if you don't.






"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

 

[RetiredUSN]

That view is necessary to see this as the laudable purpose:




If instantly murdering over a hundred thousand Japanese non-combatants and causing the deaths of more from radiation poisoning and genetic defects is OK because it "saves American lives", then there is an inescapable and necessary principle that American lives are more important than Japanese lives.






That's why, way back at the beginning of this exchange, I responded to TheDemSocialist's remark that he says he would "always contend we should of never dropped these weapons on Japan" with the following:





In what I said there, I made clear (1) I know the purpose was about stopping the war, (2) I recognize that it was likely a far larger number of military deaths would result from a land invasion on both sides, (3) quite a lot of civilian lives, potentially the same would be lost invading, and (4) we killed a similar amount of civilians in Dresden without nukes.

But I also recognize that it is still a horrific choice to deliberately target hundreds of thousands of civilian non-combatants for extermination, even if to save a million.

Meanwhile, you want it to be black and white. For you it was just fine because it ended the war and saved American lives. For me, it was damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The Japanese killed hundreds of thousands during their campaign. You reap what you sow.

 

[Mr Person]

Really? Then why didn't they surrender after the first explosion? ?

The emperor's borderline insanity.

 

[Mr Person]

The Japanese killed hundreds of thousands during their campaign. You reap what you sow.

The civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands during their military's campaign?

Well, I didn't know that.

Somehow, I doubt you'd defend the nuking of American cities because of deaths caused by our military in its campaigns....



And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

 

[Deuce]

Really? Then why didn't they surrender after the first explosion? ?

Disarray. Nobody had ever seen this before, and the damage caused destroyed all first response infrastructure in the city. Some in the Japanese military had thought it impossible for America to have developed a nuclear weapon already. And things were pretty bad even before the bomb. Remember that this was 1945, command and control infrastructure wasn't as sophisticated as what we have today, and the Japanese home islands were already battered by US bombing raids.

Try to imagine yourself in a world where nobody had ever witnessed an explosion of this magnitude. You're receiving reports of overwhelming damage from a city and are probably thinking "this can't be right." And it's not like someone can snap a photo and text it to you.

 

[RetiredUSN]

The civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands during their military's campaign?

Well, I didn't know that.

Somehow, I doubt you'd defend the nuking of American cities because of deaths caused by our military in its campaigns....



And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

Germany civilians was fire bombed.
England's civilians was fire bombed.
Russians were killed by the thousands by Germans.
Chinese were raped and killed by the thousands by the Japanese.
Filipino's were killed by the thousands by the Japanese.
Comfort women used by the Japanese.
Torture of POW's by the Japanese.

Laha massacre[68]
Banka Island massacre[69]
Parit Sulong
Palawan Massacre
SS Behar
SS Tjisalak massacre perpetrated by Japanese submarine I-8
Wake Island massacre
Tinta Massacre
Bataan Death March
Shin'yō Maru Incident
Sulug Island massacre
Pontianak incidents


Screw em!

 

[Cameron]

I went to the Hiroshima museum in middle school with a group of my american classmates. It was a very moving experience, they certainly don't teach anything about what it was like have been in Hiroshima at the time of the bomb in US schools. Horrific stories of thousands of people, men, women, most of them civilians, children, hair fried off, skin hanging in tatters, crawling into the river, houses and entire families lost.

Just viewing the museum was a traumatic experience, many of us were understandably very upset. Our Japanese host offered that Japan was responsible for vast, equally horrific suffering in China.

It's kind of amazing, when you think about it, that US-Japan relations are what they are today. I can't imagine that if Japan had bombed two cities full of civilians relations today would be quite the same.

 

[Slyfox696]

And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

I'll admit it. :shrug:

I 100% agree that, in a war which Japan first attacked us with a sneak attack, in a war which basically came down to Japanese lives or American lives, we should have protected American lives. It's not like those soldiers in the Pacific theater were all volunteers, there were a whole hell of a lot of draftees, men who did no want to be there but had to. They were civilians, just like the ones destroyed by the bombs.

Yes, as an American, I place a greater value on American lives than I do the lives of any other country. And, assuming the moral issue is roughly equal, if I have to decide between American lives and the lives of any other group/country, I'll choose American lives. And I am perfectly aware the citizens of other countries feel the exact same way as I do, only in the opposite direction.

I don't think there's any shame in admitting if we had to decide between American lives being lost or Japanese lives being lost, I'm glad it was the Japanese lives which were lost. Ideally no lives would be lost, but that simply wasn't the reality of the situation at the time.

 

[vanceen]

Disarray. Nobody had ever seen this before, and the damage caused destroyed all first response infrastructure in the city. Some in the Japanese military had thought it impossible for America to have developed a nuclear weapon already. And things were pretty bad even before the bomb. Remember that this was 1945, command and control infrastructure wasn't as sophisticated as what we have today, and the Japanese home islands were already battered by US bombing raids.

Try to imagine yourself in a world where nobody had ever witnessed an explosion of this magnitude. You're receiving reports of overwhelming damage from a city and are probably thinking "this can't be right." And it's not like someone can snap a photo and text it to you.

You say the Japanese did not surrender after their city was destroyed because of disarray. Yet you also maintain that they would have surrendered following a demonstration on a remote island (perhaps). It's hard to reconcile these two views.

 

[Mason66]

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]

Why do you see it that way?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Why do you see it that way?

As the article explained, "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.. Kerry is the most senior executive branch official to visit."

 

[Mason66]

As the article explained, "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.. Kerry is the most senior executive branch official to visit."

Maybe Kerry was there and wanted to see it.

Why do you say it is a big deal because he is the Secretary of State.

You also said he is not the highest ranking official to have visited the museum, so why is it such a big deal?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Maybe Kerry was there and wanted to see it.

Again as the article explained, Kerry is there on behalf of a G7 meeting.

Why do you say it is a big deal because he is the Secretary of State.

Because he is the first Secretary of State (AKA cheif diplomat) to visit the memorial.

You also said he is not the highest ranking official to have visited the museum, so why is it such a big deal?

Because he is the first Secretary of State (AKA cheif diplomat) to visit the memorial.

 

[Deuce]

You say the Japanese did not surrender after their city was destroyed because of disarray. Yet you also maintain that they would have surrendered following a demonstration on a remote island (perhaps). It's hard to reconcile these two views.

It's not hard for me, let me help:

Time.

More time to figure out the seriousness of what just happened, get their wits together, and make a decision. And then reach out to us with a response. I think if we'd have waited a week between bombs instead of three days, we'd never have dropped the second one.

Hell, Russia's declaration of war may have pushed them over the edge even without the bombs.

 

[Northern Light]

It's unfortunate that the topic can never be raised without it turning into the tired old debate about the bomb dropping.

Isn't it time we moved past it? That's the point of these memorials... to mend ties and celebrate what has been accomplished since then.

It was a different era in a different context. Unless you lived it, then you're just parroting textbooks and what you learned in your high school history class.

 

[Mr Person]

I'll admit it. :shrug:

I 100% agree that, in a war which Japan first attacked us with a sneak attack, in a war which basically came down to Japanese lives or American lives, we should have protected American lives. It's not like those soldiers in the Pacific theater were all volunteers, there were a whole hell of a lot of draftees, men who did no want to be there but had to. They were civilians, just like the ones destroyed by the bombs.

Yes, as an American, I place a greater value on American lives than I do the lives of any other country. And, assuming the moral issue is roughly equal, if I have to decide between American lives and the lives of any other group/country, I'll choose American lives. And I am perfectly aware the citizens of other countries feel the exact same way as I do, only in the opposite direction.

I don't think there's any shame in admitting if we had to decide between American lives being lost or Japanese lives being lost, I'm glad it was the Japanese lives which were lost. Ideally no lives would be lost, but that simply wasn't the reality of the situation at the time.

What is it about choosing to be born on American soil that makes one a superior specimen of homo sapien as compared with the rest of the world?

I understand a military commander always prioritizing American lives, but that's not the question you were responding to...

Why are American lives objectively more valuable than all others?

 

[Slyfox696]

What is it about choosing to be born on American soil that makes one a superior specimen of homo sapien as compared with the rest of the world?

Who said it did?

I understand a military commander always prioritizing American lives

And the chief military commander made the decision to prioritize American lives. And, as an American, I feel that's the right decision.

but that's not the question you were responding to...

I didn't respond to a question, I responded to a suggestion that people are afraid to admit they put a greater emphasis on American lives than Japanese lives. I said that not only am I'm not afraid to admit it, I'm quite comfortable with it.

Why are American lives objectively more valuable than all others?

Objectively speaking, no one (that I've seen) has said they are. What I have said is that if I have to decide between American lives and Japanese lives, and the moral issue is roughly equal, I'm going to choose to preserve American lives over Japanese lives, especially since Japan attack us first.

This isn't hard to understand. I'm an American, Harry Truman was an American...our first priority/loyalty is and should be to Americans. And as I said in my very first post in this thread, that doesn't mean we can't weep at the fact Japanese citizens suffered such devastating causalities, but we should always remember that SOMEBODY was going to die. Once we establish someone had to die, then it might as well be the other guy and not me. And I say that with the full understanding that a citizen of another country would feel the exact same way, only in the reverse direction.

I don't understand what issue exactly you are having with this.

 

[Mr Person]

Who said it did?

And the chief military commander made the decision to prioritize American lives. And, as an American, I feel that's the right decision.

I didn't respond to a question, I responded to a suggestion that people are afraid to admit they put a greater emphasis on American lives than Japanese lives. I said that not only am I'm not afraid to admit it, I'm quite comfortable with it.

Objectively speaking, no one (that I've seen) has said they are. What I have said is that if I have to decide between American lives and Japanese lives, and the moral issue is roughly equal, I'm going to choose to preserve American lives over Japanese lives, especially since Japan attack us first.

This isn't hard to understand. I'm an American, Harry Truman was an American...our first priority/loyalty is and should be to Americans. And as I said in my very first post in this thread, that doesn't mean we can't weep at the fact Japanese citizens suffered such devastating causalities, but we should always remember that SOMEBODY was going to die. Once we establish someone had to die, then it might as well be the other guy and not me. And I say that with the full understanding that a citizen of another country would feel the exact same way, only in the reverse direction.

I don't understand what issue exactly you are having with this.

This is what you responded to in your post #61

And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

(bolding added).

I grant that I did not use the term "objectively more valuable", but that is what I intended to express in the bolded.

If your point is that an American commander in a war is correct to prioritize American lives, then we are in agreement.

If you go farther and say that American lives are inherently more valuable than any other human lives, then we are in disagreement.


It sounds like you were making the first point, and there was a miscommunication.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is what you responded to in your post #61



(bolding added).

I grant that I did not use the term "objectively more valuable", but that is what I intended to express in the bolded.

Sorry, I thought I responded to your post the other day, but I guess I didn't hit submit.

I don't see anyone in this thread saying American lives are objectively more valuable. I think it's pretty clear most in this thread are saying "it's better them than us".

If your point is that an American commander in a war is correct to prioritize American lives, then we are in agreement.

It's my point that, as a citizen of this country, I'm going to prioritize American lives over the lives of any other country, especially one with which we are at war. It's also my point that I understand citizens of other countries will feel the same way about their countrymen.

It sounds like you were making the first point, and there was a miscommunication.

I'm mostly making the first point, except I take issue with the idea only a commander can feel that way.

 

[radcen]

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.)

I am fine with a visit. Doesn't bother me at all. As long as nothing even remotely resembling an apology or some type of regret is included.

Also, technically, isn't every action "historic"?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am fine with a visit. Doesn't bother me at all. As long as nothing even remotely resembling an apology or some type of regret is included.

Also, technically, isn't every action "historic"?

Unfortunately with politics these days, someone taking a dump in a White House bathroom ends up "historic."

 

[Slyfox696]

Unfortunately with politics these days, someone taking a dump in a White House bathroom ends up "historic."

Are you saying that you really don't see the significance of a high ranking US government official visiting a memorial dedicated to the most destructive man made events in history, which was instigated by the US government?