Protests as US ship docks in Nagasaki

[Kim]

Linky

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 unwanted

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.

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.

Originally Posted by Article

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

Originally Posted by Krylo

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]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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.