Protests as US ship docks in Nagasaki

[Kim]

Linky (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2ythQz1593qkDYkd0OJ0kq_IWUg)

TOKYO (AFP) — A US warship docked Thursday in Nagasaki to the protests of residents and a boycott by local leaders who said the visit was in poor taste in a city obliterated by a US atomic bomb.

The USS Blue Ridge, which is stationed in Yokosuka near Tokyo, sailed to Nagasaki with a stated goal of promoting friendship between Japan and the United States.

Hundreds of residents including atomic bomb survivors chanted, "We are opposed to the port call!" as the 19,600-ton vessel arrived in the southwestern city.

"We don't want to see the US flag flying at this port and this feeling will not change until the United States takes a policy towards the elimination of nuclear weapons," Osamu Yoshitomi, an official at Nagasaki city, told AFP.

Nagasaki's mayor and regional governor both refused to take part in the welcome ceremony after unsuccessfully asking Japanese and US authorities to cancel the visit.

The United States stations more than 40,000 troops in Japan under a post-World War II alliance. Under a 1960 agreement, local authorities do not have the right to refuse US warships' port calls.

It was the seventh visit by a US military vessel to the city of Nagasaki. The US Navy also maintains a major base in the nearby city of Sasebo, part of Nagasaki prefecture.

Nagasaki Mayor Tomohisa Taue regretted the timing of the visit, saying that atomic bomb survivors had been optimistic that newly installed US President Barack Obama would move towards nuclear abolition.

"Nagasaki cannot accept a port call which rouses anxiety in a city hit by an atomic bomb," Taue said in a statement.

So, thoughts?

I'll post my opinion after I give some more thought on the matter.

[Nique]

Americans haven't faced a tragedy on that level, there's no way the military can understand that. To me that means a respectful withdrawal just out of courtesy and, maybe shame?

[bluestarultor]

I have a hard time blaming them. I mean, we nuked them, after all. That means essentially that everyone in a 50-mile radius was blown by gale-force winds, cooked alive, had their skin melted off, and then if they were lucky, died to end the pain. Those who weren't on the Universe's "deserves the whim of my mercy" list suffered in agony from burns, radiation poisoning (?), may have STILL died as a result after lingering, and if not may have even been sterilized.

To put it bluntly, they have every fuggin' right to be pissed at what could be considered a miniature (if peaceful) invasion when they made it damn clear that the visit was unwanted and were held up by a 50-year-old agreement probably designed with a much broader audience in mind for much more military reasons than sending a boat in as a sign of peace during a time when pretty much everyone was still sore. I think the message was pretty clear that the gesture was unwanted and unwelcome. Hopefully everyone involved recognizes that and acts accordingly in an immediate manner before some nutjob decides a sign isn't enough and starts planting bombs.

[Krylo]

The problem with the abolition of nuclear weapons is simple--MAD.

We can't get rid of ours, or the people who didn't get rid of theirs would have no fear holding them back from using theirs.

Or, in easier to understand terms--the only reason Russia is inhabitable right now is they had nukes aimed at us. The only reason America is inhabitable right now is because we had nukes aimed at Russia. If either of us had not had nukes, you better believe the other would have pulled the trigger and turned another country into a nuclear wasteland. Or at least used the threat to keep anyone from fighting back during an invasion.

The entire (nuclear capable) world is in one giant mexican stand off, and putting down your gun is just asking to be shot.

Yeah--it'd be great if we could just abolish all nuclear weapons in the world, but that's simply not an option, so the next best option is to make sure that we can keep the stand off going.

That said:

when they made it damn clear that the visit was unwantedDid they? It says they hit the dock when the ship came in, but I saw nothing in the story about the military being informed ahead of time that people didn't want them docking. Also, Nagasaki has over four hundred fifty thousand people. The report says hundreds protested.

One has to ask--is it just the vocal minority or the majority that is angered? If there had been thousands, I'd say right away the majority, but getting together a few hundred out of 450,000 isn't that hard.

However, I'd still say the ship should just pull back, we should offer a token apology, and be on with our lives. It's really not worth getting into anything over.

[Osterbaum]

Did they? It says they hit the dock when the ship came in, but I saw nothing in the story about the military being informed ahead of time that people didn't want them docking. Also, Nagasaki has over four hundred fifty thousand people. The report says hundreds protested.
Nagasaki's mayor and regional governor both refused to take part in the welcome ceremony after unsuccessfully asking Japanese and US authorities to cancel the visit.
I would call that making it clear it was an unwanted visit.

[bluestarultor]

The problem with the abolition of nuclear weapons is simple--MAD.

We can't get rid of ours, or the people who didn't get rid of theirs would have no fear holding them back from using theirs.

Or, in easier to understand terms--the only reason Russia is inhabitable right now is they had nukes aimed at us. The only reason America is inhabitable right now is because we had nukes aimed at Russia. If either of us had not had nukes, you better believe the other would have pulled the trigger and turned another country into a nuclear wasteland. Or at least used the threat to keep anyone from fighting back during an invasion.

The entire (nuclear capable) world is in one giant mexican stand off, and putting down your gun is just asking to be shot.

Yeah--it'd be great if we could just abolish all nuclear weapons in the world, but that's simply not an option, so the next best option is to make sure that we can keep the stand off going.

For those who don't know and don't want to research, MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction, which translates to a policy of "Wanna bomb us? We'll bomb the FUCK out of you back!" You know that entire thing with the US not having bomb shelters? MAD. Every man, woman, and child in America today is a nuclear hostage, and have been since the start of the Cold War. In a strange way, it's almost like being born into a strange form of slavery to the entire world and going sometimes your entire life without knowing it.

...


Anyway...
Did they? It says they hit the dock when the ship came in, but I saw nothing in the story about the military being informed ahead of time that people didn't want them docking. Also, Nagasaki has over four hundred fifty thousand people. The report says hundreds protested.

One has to ask--is it just the vocal minority or the majority that is angered? If there had been thousands, I'd say right away the majority, but getting together a few hundred out of 450,000 isn't that hard.

However, I'd still say the ship should just pull back, we should offer a token apology, and be on with our lives. It's really not worth getting into anything over.

This line:
Nagasaki's mayor and regional governor both refused to take part in the welcome ceremony after unsuccessfully asking Japanese and US authorities to cancel the visit.




Edit: Ninja'd. I really need to learn to type faster...

[Kim]

The whole MAD thing is a real shame to. I was at the Hiroshima museum, and there were so many letters sent out by the mayor of Hiroshima to all the nuclear weapons countries. I'd like to believe that someday we'll abolish nukes, but right now it just doesn't seem feasible.

[Krylo]

I would call that making it clear it was an unwanted visit.

Somehow missed that entire line reading both the quote and the story.

My bad.

[Odjn]

The problem with the abolition of nuclear weapons is simple--MAD.

We can't get rid of ours, or the people who didn't get rid of theirs would have no fear holding them back from using theirs.

Or, in easier to understand terms--the only reason Russia is inhabitable right now is they had nukes aimed at us. The only reason America is inhabitable right now is because we had nukes aimed at Russia. If either of us had not had nukes, you better believe the other would have pulled the trigger and turned another country into a nuclear wasteland. Or at least used the threat to keep anyone from fighting back during an invasion.

The entire (nuclear capable) world is in one giant mexican stand off, and putting down your gun is just asking to be shot.

Yeah--it'd be great if we could just abolish all nuclear weapons in the world, but that's simply not an option, so the next best option is to make sure that we can keep the stand off going.



That being said, how many do we really need?

[Kim]

More than the other guy.

You only need so much to utterly destroy them, but if you're going to blow each other up, you have to make sure the other guy gets utterly destroyed more.

[TheSparrow]

First off, because the mayor and regional governor and a portion of the people have a problem with it doesnt mean everyone does. Thats like how the Seattle mayor the people of Seattle had problems with WTO being their, and indeed rioted. Fact is a majority of the state was NOT against the WTO, nor a majority of the country.

I am probably going to get slammed for this, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Japanese. Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

Besides, I would put the nuclear bombs as the 5th worst crime in World War 2

1. The Holocaust (Germany)
2. The Rape of Nanking (Japan)
3. The Siege of Leningrad (Germany)
4. The Firebombing of Dresden (Allied forces [U.S. and Britain])
5. The Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (United States)

[Osterbaum]

I am probably going to get slammed for this, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Japanese. Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths.
That is assuming that you believe ends justify means in such cases, which some of us do not believe. That being said, there really isn't any point debating what would've happened had things been done differently, since we can't really know we can just speculate.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.
That's not counting all those who died later of radiation or who have suffered conditions ultimately caused by radiation. We might never know the true numbers.

1. The Holocaust (Germany)
2. The Rape of Nanking (Japan)
3. The Siege of Leningrad (Germany)
4. The Firebombing of Dresden (Allied forces [U.S. and Britain])
5. The Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (United States)
All these war crimes were horrible and many more were almost as horrible if not equally horrible or even worse.

Slightly off-topic; Who sees a pattern in that list? Think of the times at which each tragedy occurred compared to who was responsible and to how the war was going for certain sides at the time.

[TheSparrow]

That's not counting all those who died later of radiation or who have suffered conditions ultimately caused by radiation. We might never know the true numbers.

Actually I was using the "LOW" estimates of the death tolls including radiation poisoning (it doesnt include cancer from later years, because there is just no way to be sure how much of it was and wasnt from exposure) the actual immediate death tolls were only about 110,000 and roughly the same amount over the next year or so from radiation poisoning.


Slightly off-topic; Who sees a pattern in that list? Think of the times at which each tragedy occurred compared to who was responsible and to how the war was going for certain sides at the time.

The reason for that should be obvious, when youre losing a war its very difficult to commit massive atrocities. When youre on the losing end your atrocities tend to be on the smaller side of things (I.E. Bataan Death March, Japanese Murdering of POWs at camps they were abandoning, The Izieu Massacre, The Destruction of the Sixth German Army at Stalingrad, etc)

[Grand Master Kickface]

I'm sure the U.S. didn't mean anything by it, but I have to admit it was pretty stupid of them to bring a warship as a symbol of peace.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if the locals are making this into a bigger deal than it is. The Japan and U.S. of 1945 and the Japan and U.S of 2009 are entirely separate entities; that is, the cultural mindsets the countries had in 1945 are completely different than the ones that exist today, and there's no reason our countries today need to hold any animosity towards each other. It's like if two children hated each other just because their grandparents hated each other.

Also, really? They can't refuse U.S. warships based on an agreement from the year 1960? Shouldn't that be, like, void by now?

[Kepor]

Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.
The point from the sources I read was to force "unconditional surrender". Surrendering under agreed terms wasn't enough, we had to have an absolute surrender, for some reason.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.
That would be a better goal, but who's honestly gonna start reducing their nuclear weapon stockpile first? Keep in mind there will be people who just don't want to reduce their arsenals, possibly because they're power hungry dictators. I mean you're kind of assuming that everyone in the world who can possibly make a nuclear bomb has an equal goal in mind of absolute world peace, when in reality there's people who only have their agendas or their countries agendas in mind. They wouldn't have many qualms about using nuclear weapons to further those agendas, in theory. And really, even if you remove all your weapons because you believe there's a high likely hood that theory is wrong, this is something that one does not want to be wrong about.

At this point, keeping nuclear weapons around is more of a "better safe than sorry" thing.

[Kepor]

The point from the sources I read was to force "unconditional surrender". Surrendering under agreed terms wasn't enough, we had to have an absolute surrender, for some reason.


That was the intention, yes.


I mean you're kind of assuming that everyone in the world who can possibly make a nuclear bomb has an equal goal in mind of absolute world peace, when in reality there's people who only have their agendas or their countries agendas in mind. They wouldn't have many qualms about using nuclear weapons to further those agendas, in theory. And really, even if you remove all your weapons because you believe there's a high likely hood that theory is wrong, this is something that one does not want to be wrong about.


Actually, people having their country's best interest in mind is sort of what this depends on. While nuclear arms are a deterrence factor, the actual use of them is unlikely because any country that deploys a nuke is going to be ostracized by the international community.


At this point, keeping nuclear weapons around is more of a "better safe than sorry" thing.

The trouble with that is, if it ever comes down to that, there won't be a chance to rebuild. MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival, whereas defenses, if we got them actually working, would still allow us protection while reducing the possibility of extinction.

[bluestarultor]

Actually, people having their country's best interest in mind is sort of what this depends on. While nuclear arms are a deterrence factor, the actual use of them is unlikely because any country that deploys a nuke is going to be ostracized by the international community.

And bombed. But that hasn't stopped Iran and North Korea from making strides to build the things. Iran at this point is heavily anti-Israeli and anti-American. I can guess a couple of the potential targets at the top of their list should they decide to fire one off. North Korea is at the same time more and less scary. More because there's probably more targets on their list, but less because I think they'd be less likely to actually bomb them and even less likely than that to start with the U.S.

The trouble with that is, if it ever comes down to that, there won't be a chance to rebuild. MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival, whereas defenses, if we got them actually working, would still allow us protection while reducing the possibility of extinction.

That's actually in the works currently. I'd need to dig it up again, but Yahoo News had an article on basically a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese. I'm pretty sure we've also been looking into shooting missiles down with other missiles, but I'd actually have to look for a solid source on that.

In the meantime, with everyone seeing having nukes as being the ticket into the Club of World Powers, I have serious doubts that we'll all just up and disarm anytime soon.

[Krylo]

MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival

Actually that's the whole POINT of MAD.

Yes, once someone fires, it doesn't help anymore. However, the promise of return fire keeps anyone from shooting in the first place. That's how it 'stakes something toward our own survival'. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrence.

Even with missile defense systems active, I'd rather keep MAD in operation as well. Any missile defense system is going to be imperfect, and people will find work arounds or new technologies to attack through them. MAD means that most people aren't going to want to attack us, while a missile defense system means those who do are going to have a harder time. The more layers of defense against nuclear devastation the better.

a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese.Those just sounded like machine guns. They were actually jet engines that fire off in small bursts for direction. The missile defense itself launches a missile at the missile, and then out of the original missile launched a bunch of those things fly out and their onboard computers direct them toward the oncoming missile.

It's pretty cool.

[Preturbed]

It seem like a big overreaction to me. I mean, I don't think anyone in the UK would make a fuss if Germany sent a boat over to them. This stuff all happened over 60 years ago. The world is a very different place now and we're all cool with each other.

[Jagos]

I have to say, as a guy that was over in Japan for at least 7 years, this is a load of BS.

Japan's military is basically the US military which is helping them by protecting them from the long range missiles of N. Korea. They have no military (Self Defense force, which doesn't have anywhere NEAR the spy planes of the US) and quite frankly, they would protest anything.

To sit here and put it in perspective, near bases within Japan the closer you are to a base which has military planes, the more you get paid. That's to appease for the noise pollution of said planes. And yet, people STILL b---h about the fact that they have to listen to the noise. Ok, if you don't want the money, move. What is complaining about military personnel, when they're major sources of income for the poorer parts of Japan (anything not Tokyo or Osaka) and the visits have happened more than once?

[TheSparrow]

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

[01d55]

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

If by "surrender" you mean, "unconditional surrender" then yes. Conditional surrender, on the other hand, was very much on the table - Japan was desperate to negotiate. Given that by this point the Axis were defeated in Europe, refusal on the part of the US to consider negotiating terms could only be justified by three things: Firstly, a desire to keep our word to Russia, which, given the fact that the administration was already assuming postwar relations with Russia would be hostile, is an implausible explanation; secondly, out of concern that public opinion would react negatively to conditional surrender, which given the terrible death caused by any means of inducing unconditional surrender is plausible but morally unjustifiable; third, a desire to demonstrate the bomb in order to intimidate Russia, the most contemptible and most likely explanation (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/06/culture-of-lie-ii-loathsome-lies-in.html) for the decision to bomb rather than negotiate.

[Kepor]

Actually having been a history major, there is pretty much no way that Japan was going to surrender. Because without the emperor stepping in it would have taken a unanimous vote from the Supreme War Council. They openly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and the military was even preparing to make a move to take over to assure there was no surrender after Russia declared war. Infact there was one coup attempt that the united states unknowingly aborted through a firebombing run. It took the two bombs to get Hirohito to intervene, and without his intervention, there would have never been surrender.

The use of the nuclear bomb was chosen because of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers at Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa, the Philippines , etc... according to most of the writings that are public from that time, including president Truman's, the idea was that a psychological weapon like the bomb was the only way to get the Japanese to capitulate, without severe loss of both allied and Japanese life. The Japanese had even extended their ages of conscription after the capture of Okinawa, in preparation for a mainland invasion. I won't argue that the Russian invasion of Manchuria wasnt a deciding factor in the timeline, though.

EDIT: as for your belief that an invasion would have been unnecessary, three of the six members of the Supreme War Council were refusing to surrender even after the second bomb drop, and were basically forced to accept it from the emperor. Anami, Umezu and Toyada all felt that the only way they could surrender was "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]" (that means the mainland invasion). Anami was actually most likely involved in the military coup attempt to stop surrender AFTER the second bomb was dropped. Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

I stand corrected.

That's actually in the works currently. I'd need to dig it up again, but Yahoo News had an article on basically a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese. I'm pretty sure we've also been looking into shooting missiles down with other missiles, but I'd actually have to look for a solid source on that.

We have several anti-ballistic missile systems, all with uncertain records. The Patriot system is the only one I know off the top of my head, which was deployed to intercept Scud missiles, I believe. It had one absolutely confirmed kill, and a lot of maybes. I haven't heard of that machine-gun thing, but that research is ongoing is promising.

[TheSparrow]

I stand corrected.

Actually I should have not said "No way they would surrender. Japan had always planned on ending the war with the U.S., just they wanted to do it on their terms only, not ours, our terms were unacceptable to them."

[Kepor]

I didn't know the aspects of the Japanese position; my classes focused mainly on the scientists building the bomb and the decision to drop it, so I know the American position and reasoning behind the decision, but not the Japanese government during the same time. So yeah.

That said, I still think dropping the bomb was unnecessary, but I can still see the motivation behind the decision.

Although I can't really see the motivation behind the protests. I mean, the Blue Ridge is a command ship, it's not like it's a missile sub, which would justify the outrage. Although I doubt a sub would dock openly, but hey.

[Jagos]

I believe the emperor wanted to surrender. It was the military that wanted to continue fighting.

Lookup the Kyuju Incident for more details.

[TheSparrow]

I believe the emperor wanted to surrender. It was the military that wanted to continue fighting.

Lookup the Kyuju Incident for more details.

yeah I was talking about that when i mentioned the coup attempt that Anami was probably a part of.

The Emperor and his staff were looking for Russia to negotiate a peace settlement between Japan and the U.S. as early as 1945, but were told by the Russians that they would probably get nothing better than unconditional surrender from the the U.S. and even the emperor and his staff felt that unconditional surrender was totally unacceptable.

From Japan's ambassador to russia in July of 1945:
"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."

[TheSparrow]

If by "surrender" you mean, "unconditional surrender" then yes. Conditional surrender, on the other hand, was very much on the table - Japan was desperate to negotiate. Given that by this point the Axis were defeated in Europe, refusal on the part of the US to consider negotiating terms could only be justified by three things: Firstly, a desire to keep our word to Russia, which, given the fact that the administration was already assuming postwar relations with Russia would be hostile, is an implausible explanation; secondly, out of concern that public opinion would react negatively to conditional surrender, which given the terrible death caused by any means of inducing unconditional surrender is plausible but morally unjustifiable; third, a desire to demonstrate the bomb in order to intimidate Russia, the most contemptible and most likely explanation (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/06/culture-of-lie-ii-loathsome-lies-in.html) for the decision to bomb rather than negotiate.

and...

Anami, Umezu and Toyada even after both bombs were dropped held that the ONLY way they would surrender was if there was no occupation, Japan was in charge of its own disarmament, and Japan was the only one who could try Japanese war crimes.

EDIT: Also the facts in that blog arent right...there were SEVERAL different tallies by the military and the Joint Chiefs study done in april actually claimed that "figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities." A study done my General MacArthur claimed 145,000 casualties in 120days.

And a study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

All of this was presented to Truman well before he ever made the decision to drop the bomb

[viale]

maybe they are pissed because the U.S. never acknowledged or apologized for what in many circles are considered a warcrime.

Preturbed: dont be so sure on that, the Israelies made a big scene over a german destroyer entering israeli waters in a peacekeeping/NATO expedition a few years ago. (although other ww2 agendas of the nazis seems to have been adopted quite well)

[Odjn]

If we were so inclined to ending the war without casualties we could've nuked an island and said, "Hey. We'll drop that on you if you don't surrender." It might not have worked but we had more nukes.

Instead we hit Hiroshima and then Nagasaki three days later with further preparation to continue nuking Japan until it surrendered.

[viale]

I agree with you partly on that, but I still believe a bomb on a japanese city would be the end result(ie. the japanese war councils refusal to be detered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but maybe only one nuke on a city would have been enough if a warning shot had been fired beforehand. But then we're back at the beginning since I believe the dicussion is as much on the results of the bombings as the use of the bombs in the first place.

[Magus]

I think a lot of this hinges on the idea that nuclear bombs cause more casualties than regular bombing runs, when in fact the fire-bombing of Dresden (mentioned earlier) incurred more casualties than either of the nuclear bombings seperately (combined the number is higher, of course).

Of course, this doesn't take into account further casualties from nuclear radiation and the overall problems caused by making large amounts of land uninhabitable due to radiation.

Personally I'm not going to argue that dropping the nuclear bombs was "justified" on any moral scale other than the rules of war did not prohibit it and nuclear bombs are one means of achieving victory in a war. If the argument is that we should have firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than nuclear bombed them it doesn't seem much more valid: the amount of casualties would have been the same. The only "positive" is that a firebombing run would have been riskier to U.S. soldiers, which isn't a positive.

I think the main argument, as most people have said, is that the U.S. was unwilling to negotiate a less-than unconditional surrender on the part of the Japanese, which having heard the evidence of the Japanese leadership's fanaticism in refusing to even conditional surrenders based on "honor", puts no one on the "righteous" high horse.

Basically, both sides were at fault and everyone, Japanese and American, should not be pointing the blame at the other side. Rather we should learn from the entire thing and move on. The purpose of these protests seems to be to point blame at the American government (which is 60 years removed from the conflict), rather than to bring to light the bombing as something that should not be repeated, and that the things which brought the bombing on should not be repeated, etc.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the protests if the participants' main quarrel is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the American military. But if their quarrel is some sort of blame game I don't really hold with it.

[Jagos]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the protests if the participants' main quarrel is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the American military. But if their quarrel is some sort of blame game I don't really hold with it.

A few things...

Some of the survivors were taken to the US for plastic surgery for the scars rendered from the nuclear blast. As well, I'm sure this is a natural occurrence. Their argument really doesn't hold water since it only houses the ship for a short time.