In milestone year, A-bomb survivor keeps up fight for nuclear disarmament

[snoop1130]

In milestone year, A-bomb survivor keeps up fight for nuclear disarmament

By Akiko Okamoto

 

Terumi Tanaka, a Nagasaki atomic bombing survivor and co-chairperson of Nihon Hidankyo, a country-wide organisation of atomic and hydrogen bomb sufferers, poses for a photograph during an interview with Reuters at the Nihon Hidankyo office in Tokyo, Japan July 30, 2020. REUTERS/Issei Kato

 

TOKYO (Reuters) - Terumi Tanaka was 13 when a U.S. warplane dropped a plutonium bomb on the southern Japanese city of Nagasaki, on Aug. 9, 1945.

 

Sitting at home with a book that morning, Tanaka knew instantly when his surroundings turned a blinding bright white that the massive boom was not one of the air raids he had gotten accustomed to in the waning days of World War Two.

 

"I felt this was something terrible, so I ran downstairs and ducked, covered my ears and closed my eyes," Tanaka, now 88, told Reuters. "And at that moment, I lost consciousness."

 

Just 3.2 km (2 miles) from the epicentre, Tanaka was miraculously unharmed, as were his mother and two sisters. Tanaka's father had died of illness previously.

 

Tanaka's grandfather, aunt and uncle weren't as lucky.

 

Three days after the 10,000-pound (4,536kg) bomb, nicknamed "Fat Man", exploded over the city, Tanaka ventured towards the epicentre to check on his relatives.

 

It was only then that the scale of the calamity sank in.

 

Buildings in the city had been reduced to charred piles of rubble and twisted metal, a vast expanse of land was wiped out, and corpses and burn victims with flesh peeling off their bones littered the ground. His grandfather was one of them: Tanaka dabbed a wet handkerchief to his mouth, which appeared to silently cry out for water. That was their last encounter.

 

Three days after the hydrogen bomb attack in Hiroshima, the Nagasaki blast killed about 27,000 instantly and more than 70,000 by the end of the year. Japan surrendered six days later.

 

For nearly 50 years, Tanaka has been speaking out for nuclear disarmament hoping that his experiences as a witness to one of the only two nuclear bombs ever to be used in conflict would serve to end their potential use.

 

In this 75th year since the war ended, the coronavirus pandemic has disrupted some key events, such as a New York exhibition that Tanaka helped to organise.

 

Instead, Tanaka, who served as head of the "Hidankyo" victims' group for more than 20 years, has turned online to spread his message, with the unexpected benefit of reaching a broader audience.

 

But he worries that time is running out.

 

"After all the atomic bomb survivors are gone, I'm worried whether people will be able to really understand what we have experienced," he said.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-08-03

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

For nearly 50 years, Tanaka has been speaking out for nuclear disarmament hoping that his experiences as a witness to one of the only two nuclear bombs ever to be used in conflict would serve to end their potential use.

 

In this 75th year since the war ended, the coronavirus pandemic has disrupted some key events, such as a New York exhibition that Tanaka helped to organise.

 

Instead, Tanaka, who served as head of the "Hidankyo" victims' group for more than 20 years, has turned online to spread his message, with the unexpected benefit of reaching a broader audience.

 

But he worries that time is running out.

 

"After all the atomic bomb survivors are gone, I'm worried whether people will be able to really understand what we have experienced," he said.

A voice that needs to be listened to. 

[Justgrazing]

Splitting the atom was/is one of mankind's greatest achievements but it was harnessed for the wrong reasons and for the past 75yrs we have all lived under the spectre of what it can do after seeing its apocalyptic power demonstrated with devastating effect and consequences in Japan during the final weeks of WW2 .. This man has a message that should be heard by all in the hope that events like the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never repeated .. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Unfortunately the country with the most nukes in this world tries hard that other countries don't get nukes. But they want more and more and no disarmament. Sad.

[Tug]

Imo the bomb has been a mixed blessing we haven’t repeated ww1 ww2 size wars (excluding Iran versus Iraq)in the early 80s.in the long run it as horrible as it sounds it probably saved many lives in japan as no invasion was nessary I wished they had demonstrated its power to the Japanese in a different way let’s all pray it’s never used again 

[lungbing]

If Japan had not had such a warlike culture there would have been no need for an atomic bomb.

[Cryingdick]

36 minutes ago, lungbing said:

If Japan had not had such a warlike culture there would have been no need for an atomic bomb.

Other than the fact the Germans were developing one? I get your point however. I lived in Japan for a long time and every August they would do the moment of silence thing and talk about how horrible the bombs were. All the while never acknowledging that it was their attempt to take over the world that brought it upon them. 

 

As far as stopping nukes around the world, I am not sure it can be done. The technology is about as old as a tube TV. Japan for example could probably assemble a bomb in 15 minutes if they wanted or had to.

[GinBoy2]

I have very mixed emotions when it comes to the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan.

 

Yes the outcome was horrendous, but it pales compared to the massacre of 8M Chinese during WW2 by Japanese forces

 

So Yes, it was awful and the world will never be the same.

But it did bring to an end the awful rape and killing by Japan, without losing more hundreds of thousands of US troops if a full scale invasion of the Japanese home islands had been attempted.

 

I think it's often forgotten by many Americans and Europeans, that China had the largest number of civilian deaths of any nation in WW2.

 

Thats a fact Japan has struggled to accept, and has rather preferred to focus on Nagasaki and Hiroshima

[mrfill]

5 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I have very mixed emotions when it comes to the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan.

 

Yes the outcome was horrendous, but it pales compared to the massacre of 8M Chinese during WW2 by Japanese forces

 

So Yes, it was awful and the world will never be the same.

But it did bring to an end the awful rape and killing by Japan, without losing more hundreds of thousands of US troops if a full scale invasion of the Japanese home islands had been attempted.

 

I think it's often forgotten by many Americans and Europeans, that China had the largest number of civilian deaths of any nation in WW2.

 

Thats a fact Japan has struggled to accept, and has rather preferred to focus on Nagasaki and Hiroshima

Except the Soviet Union had rather more...

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

 

[jesimps]

6 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I have very mixed emotions when it comes to the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan.

 

Yes the outcome was horrendous, but it pales compared to the massacre of 8M Chinese during WW2 by Japanese forces

 

So Yes, it was awful and the world will never be the same.

But it did bring to an end the awful rape and killing by Japan, without losing more hundreds of thousands of US troops if a full scale invasion of the Japanese home islands had been attempted.

 

I think it's often forgotten by many Americans and Europeans, that China had the largest number of civilian deaths of any nation in WW2.

 

Thats a fact Japan has struggled to accept, and has rather preferred to focus on Nagasaki and Hiroshima

Also, don't forget that it saved the lives of thousands who would have committed suicide on government orders if the allies had reached the main island.

My heart bleeds for the poor civilians who died under the bomb, but the blame must go to the then Japanese government and Emperor Hirotito.

[rabas]

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Unfortunately the country with the most nukes in this world tries hard that other countries don't get nukes. But they want more and more and no disarmament. Sad.

I don't think so. Russia likely helped North Korea along their way to a hydrogen bomb. I can't conceive such an isolated, near stone age state has the capability to do it alone. Also note Russia has been Iran's only significant global ally. 

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

[Logosone]

15 hours ago, Tug said:

Imo the bomb has been a mixed blessing we haven’t repeated ww1 ww2 size wars (excluding Iran versus Iraq)in the early 80s.in the long run it as horrible as it sounds it probably saved many lives in japan as no invasion was nessary I wished they had demonstrated its power to the Japanese in a different way let’s all pray it’s never used again 

A complete myth and utterly false.

 

The Americans with their atomic bombs killed more in one day than Germans did during the entire war at Buchenwald.

 

Moreover, the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary and saved no lives at all. They did however cost over 100,000 lives. In one day.

 

Japan, as is now known, was already trying to surrender. The notion that the bombs saved lives is an out and out propaganda lie put out by Truman at the time to justify his barbaric war crime. Historians now are clear that the bomb did not save lives and was wholly unnecessary.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Unfortunately the country with the most nukes in this world tries hard that other countries don't get nukes. But they want more and more and no disarmament. Sad.

I don't think so. Russia likely helped North Korea along their way to a hydrogen bomb. I can't conceive such an isolated, near stone age state has the capability to do it alone. Also note Russia has been Iran's only significant global ally. 

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

What you say does not make my statement untrue.

I am sure some nuclear powers help other countries - like the USA helps Israel. And in a way that's bad because more nuclear weapons are bad.

But it's easy to understand why NK wants to keep their weapons. And it's also easy to understand why other countries want those weapons.

Because the risk for countries who have those weapons to be attacked by other countries such as the USA is so much lower. Like: Can you blame someone to get a gun when the neighbor is pointing a gun at them? 

[rabas]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What you say does not make my statement untrue.

Your statement was untrue as soon as you posted it. Did you look at the link?

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

 

Anyway, you accused the US of supporting nuclear non proliferation, that part I agree with.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by rabas

[Logosone]

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:

 

It seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

[Logosone]

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

 

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

[simple1]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. They said:

 

It seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Bаsеd on а dеtаilеd invеstigаtion of аll thе fаcts, аnd supportеd by thе tеstimony of thе surviving Jаpаnеsе lеаdеrs involvеd, it is thе Survеy's opinion thаt cеrtаinly prior to 31 Dеcеmbеr 1945, аnd in аll probаbility prior to 1 Novеmbеr 1945, Jаpаn would hаvе surrеndеrеd еvеn if thе аtomic bombs hаd not bееn droppеd, еvеn if Russiа hаd not еntеrеd thе wаr, аnd еvеn if no invаsion hаd bееn plаnnеd or contеmplаtеd.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary

You would know the Allies position was fully committed to unconditional surrender. From your link content from a letter to the Soviets by the Emperor...

 

"as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on"

 

If the atomic bombs had not been dropped the US would have continued with their massive fire-bombing campaign of Japanese cities. God only knows how many civilian deaths would have been caused until the Japanese changed their attitude to surrender, if indeed they would have in continuation of conventional war, but from memory just one fire bombing attack on Tokyo caused approx 100k deaths.

 

Why you cherry picked deaths at Buchenwald, in a prior post, to compare to the number of deaths due to atomic bombing of Japan is odd to say the least.

 

 

[Logosone]

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

 

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

[robblok]

24 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

 

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

They did not want an unconditional surrender. Even after the first bomb did they not want to surrender. Only after the second when the vote was dead locked did they invite the emperor to come and break the deadlock. 

 

So the bomb was needed for an unconditional surrender, had the US accepted some conditions then it would not have been necessary. The Japanese were quite busy preparing for an US invasion and they had even "guessed" the location of that invasion and were even instructing civilians to fight.

That does not look like they were ready for peace at least not a peace that was not on their terms. 

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

They did not want an unconditional surrender. Even after the first bomb did they not want to surrender. Only after the second when the vote was dead locked did they invite the emperor to come and break the deadlock. 

 

So the bomb was needed for an unconditional surrender, had the US accepted some conditions then it would not have been necessary. The Japanese were quite busy preparing for an US invasion and they had even "guessed" the location of that invasion and were even instructing civilians to fight.

That does not look like they were ready for peace at least not a peace that was not on their terms. 

Total poppycock. 

 

You can read English, right? Maybe look at post 18 above.

 

The Americans once they got their "unconditional" surrender in effect chose to retain the emperor. So effectively accepted Japan's condition of retaining the emperor, after the fact.

 

To argue that the atomic bomb was required to surmount the oh so unsurmountable problem of "unconditional" surrender is absolute garbage, given the fact that the Americans then turned around and accepted this condition anyway and retained the emperor.

 

Had they done so earlier, as they could easily have done, nobody was holding a gun to Truman's head forcing him to insist on the childish "unconditional" surrender, they could have said "fine, okay, we'll retain the emperor", as indeed they freakin' did anyway (!) and the surrender would have occurred without the need to burn alive 100,000 civilians, women, children and the elderly, or have them die an agonising slow death from radiation poisoning.

 

 

[Logosone]

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Total poppycock. 

 

You can read English, right? Maybe look at post 18 above.

 

The Americans once they got their "unconditional" surrender in effect chose to retain the emperor. So effectively accepted Japan's condition of retaining the emperor, after the fact.

 

To argue that the atomic bomb was required to surmount the oh so unsurmountable problem of "unconditional" surrender is absolute garbage, given the fact that the Americans then turned around and accepted this condition anyway and retained the emperor.

 

Had they done so earlier, as they could easily have done, nobody was holding a gun to Truman's head forcing him to insist on the childish "unconditional" surrender, they could have said "fine, okay, we'll retain the emperor", as indeed they freakin' did anyway (!) and the surrender would have occurred without the need to burn alive 100,000 civilians, women, children and the elderly, or have them die an agonising slow death from radiation poisoning.

 

 

Not poppycock at all got this from an documentary. All i said was facts. 

 

I never disputed that if they had said they would retain the emperor earlier then the bombs would not have been needed. 

[Rimmer]

A troll post and reply removed

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Total poppycock. 

 

You can read English, right? Maybe look at post 18 above.

 

The Americans once they got their "unconditional" surrender in effect chose to retain the emperor. So effectively accepted Japan's condition of retaining the emperor, after the fact.

 

To argue that the atomic bomb was required to surmount the oh so unsurmountable problem of "unconditional" surrender is absolute garbage, given the fact that the Americans then turned around and accepted this condition anyway and retained the emperor.

 

Had they done so earlier, as they could easily have done, nobody was holding a gun to Truman's head forcing him to insist on the childish "unconditional" surrender, they could have said "fine, okay, we'll retain the emperor", as indeed they freakin' did anyway (!) and the surrender would have occurred without the need to burn alive 100,000 civilians, women, children and the elderly, or have them die an agonising slow death from radiation poisoning.

 

 

 

it is you who is posting nonsense, the conventional bombing of Japan would have continued until the Japanese and Allies finalised a surrender agreement. There are various estimated on the number of civilians who would have been killed until a guesstimated surrender date, but ranges up to more than 350k, maybe more. To remind, the Americans did not fire-bomb a number of cities as they wished to observe the damage caused if they deployed nuclear weapons, so there were many targets where the death rate would have been horrendous with firebombing.

Edited August 4, 2020 by simple1

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

The two US Marines I knew who fought in  battles of the Pacific war had no problem with the US using the A-Bombs.

 

Nor, I doubt, do many of the millions who suffered atrocities at the hands of the Japanese.

 

Somebody decided enough Americans had died fighting the Japanese, I doubt anybody had a problem with that decision either.

 

Perhaps it would have been better for Japan not to have started a war they could not win.

 

 

[riclag]

33 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

Toward the end of the Manhatten project the scientist signed a petition ,a letter to deter the use of it !

Truman wasn't getting all the scientific opinions, according to this article ,the opinions weren't being  shared 

 

"Szilard, adamant that the atomic bomb would have disastrous geopolitical consequences, crafted a petition arguing that atomic attacks on Japan "could not be justified, at least not until the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender." That demand was in fact more moderate than Szilard’s original proposition, which pleaded for the use of the bomb to be avoided at all costs".

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/leo-szilards-fight-stop-bomb#:~:text=He was instrumental in the,Lab from 1942 to 1946.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by riclag

[robblok]

28 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

 

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

Maybe someone should have told your countrymen that. They specifically targeted woman and children. 

 

Nowadays we try to avoid killing woman and children but it still happens but back then every one bombed civilians. The Germans, the Brits, The Americans, the Japanese. All of them its all nice to look back at it with the wisdom we have now but back then things were different. 

[GinBoy2]

7 hours ago, mrfill said:

Except the Soviet Union had rather more...

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

 

Good chart, but subtract the military deaths and China still had the most civilian deaths.

 

What did strike me however, was the percentage of population civilian deaths.

 

Poland by far was the most ravaged. I looked it up, the population in 1940 was around 35M, which on the figures your chart shows means ~15% of the entire population were killed.

 

Stunningly awful

[Logosone]

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

[Logosone]

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. 

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946