100 A-bomb survivors embark on voyage to pass on experiences to world

Sunday 07th September, 05:33 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 29 Total Comments Show All

Alphaape at 09:00 AM JST - 8th September

I hope that the ship makes a stop to Wonson in North Korea and also to Iran. The seem pretty bent on getting nuclear weapons.
medievaltimes at 10:43 AM JST - 8th September

When is the last time you heard of a conscripted soldier starting a war?

Mr./Ms. Ultra I think you are missing the point. The conscripted soldiers dont have to start a war to justify the use a the bombs. As mentioned in another post a mainland invasion of Japan would have been very costly for the US (and Japan). Those conscripted soldiers would be "fair game".

Besides the conscripted soldiers, killing civilians IS a part of war that doesnt seems to be going away anytime soon. Just look at the current conflicts as well as some over the last 40 or so years. Civilian casualties (intentional) have made a large impact on military operations, political decisions, political fallout and morale (military and civilian).

You said "Civilans are never justified targets in war"

I wish you were right, but thats just not realistic. Unfortunately it has always been a part of war and I suspect it will continue to be a part of war in the future.
Alphaape at 11:17 AM JST - 8th September

I think that we are putting the morality and standards of today on the past. My case in point, it would have been wrong for the US to "nuke" Kabul right after 9/11, since it was the ruling Taliban that was in charge, and the actual nation of Afghanistan did not actually declare war. Same as in Somalia, no organized government was in charge to declare war on the US.

But, unlike modern day warfare, war was declared on behalf of the entire nation by the rulers of Japan at the time. So, as members of the nation they were put into the situation by their leaders. Yes I know that they weren't "elected" in some cases, but if Japan would have won, the same people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have enjoyed the benefits of being the victors and access to the new markets under Japanese control that would have benefited them.

So it was a terrible tragedy for them to have experienced the bomb, but it was part of war. Protest the useage of atomic bombs, but also make sure you say that if you were innocents, you blame your own government for not looking out for your interest and bringing you into the war.
yosun at 01:40 PM JST - 8th September

Two thumbs up! "aiming to promote abolishing nuclear arms worldwide"

Why people everytime arguing about right or wrong about WWII nuking matter but forget/flee the point right now?
Alphaape at 02:30 PM JST - 8th September

yosun, I think that the point right now is that the world is aware of the destructivness of nuclear weapons, and the best way is to stop the proliferation to nations or groups that are willing to "die for the cause." The US & Russia have been in numerous wars since the end of WW2, and thank God that nukes have not been used. However, the threat has remained. If thes two (I guess you could include China, Britan, France) know what is at stake with nuclear weapons and have not used them, then the deterrence has worked. However, organizations like the PLO, AlQ and others who are willing to "kill them all and let God sort them out" are the greatest threats. If we did away with them then that is one thing. But as long as smart people are willing to get paid to make them, and bad people will pay to have them made, even if it is against the law (why should they care about the law anyway, they are ready to use weapons of mass destruction, I don't believe that they have the letter of the law on their minds), then I think it is wise to have at least some weapons like this to counter threats of nuclear blackmail.
yosun at 05:11 PM JST - 8th September

Alphaape:

Yes, I mean we should destroyed all nuclear weapons anyone owned. Suppose we separate nuke club members to 3 groups: group A (The US & Russia, owned nuke can destroyed the earth nearly 100 times); group B (China, Britain & France, owned nuke can destroyed the earth nearly 10 times) and group C (Israel, India, Pakistan…. owned nuke can destroyed part of the earth). Wow~ isn’t it too much? And it’s not just some nukes! So I think the only way to close everyone’s mouth is : give up all ! I do know some people don’t deserve any trust, but it also doesn’t help if an extremist suddenly owns a A-bomb and explode it somewhere…. These people don’t have a country! We have no place to attack! And also we can’t do like them, anyway, it’s not possible their nuke can be too advanced and it’s the risk we need to take.

I still believe we should trust human of different civilization even we don’t know it, any civilization can last so long in the world can’t be too bad!
Alphaape at 07:53 PM JST - 8th September

yosun, I think you should direct your comments to the radicals who want to destroy their enemy by any means. Yes the groups you listed all have the bomb, but a funny thing, none of them have used them since World War 2. When you have rouge nations like North Korea who want to get the bomb or Iran or political groups like the Taliban or PLO who want to get them, I don't think they want them just to be "in the club."

A nation like North Korea, who would rather see its own people starve in order to get the necessary materials to make nukes, or Iran, who will say to the UN and their nuclear regulation commission "screw you" we will do what we want are the ones you need to be directing the anti-nuke positions.

So, though as noble as it sounds to say "ban all nukes" you have to look at the real world view. We are not all "enlightened" and we see the world in simple terms. If a bad guy has a big knife, I need to get a bigger knife, or a bigger gun. I don't think that because of our human nation we will ever live in a world without any weapons of any kind.
OssanULTRA at 08:57 PM JST - 8th September

medivaltimes

"Mr./Ms. Ultra I think you are missing the point. The conscripted >soldiers dont have to start a war to justify the use a the bombs. As >mentioned in another post a mainland invasion of Japan would have been >very costly for the US (and Japan). Those conscripted soldiers would >be "fair game".

medievialtimes, it appears you are the one who has missed the point, Please read the exchanges first and you'll see that the "conscripted soldiers" were brought up not as a justification to use or not the A-bombs or even as "targets" but as to whether civilians deserved to be targeted at all. My statement stands, no conscripted soldier dicates foreogn policy for a govt and is powerless to act beyond following orders. Furthermore your statement that "conscripted soldiers would be fair game" makes no sense in the context of the A-bombs because the two cities were targeted because of their industrial base and the civilian populations supporting that base, not because of conscripted solders.

Besides the conscripted soldiers, killing civilians IS a part of war >that doesnt seems to be going away anytime soon. Just look at the >current conflicts as well as some over the last 40 or so years. Civilian >casualties (intentional) have made a large impact on military >operations, political decisions, political fallout and morale (military >and civilian).

I have never stated that civilian casualties do not occur today. What I am sayiong is that the deliberate targeting of civilians which was standard practice in WWII is no longer the case. Current warfare uses terms like Collateral Damage to describe the UNINTENDED civilian casualties.

You said "Civilans are never justified targets in war" I wish you were right, but thats just not realistic. Unfortunately it >has always been a part of war and I suspect it will continue to be a >part of war in the future.

Civilians are no longer justified targets in war. That they continue to be unintended casualties will unfortunately will always be a part of war. But one must consider how many civilian casualties have been reduced through advancement in technology and change in warfare doctrine.
rurika at 09:01 PM JST - 8th September

Don't forget that Peace Boat was initially established for the purpose of educating the Japanese people about Japan's refusal to acknowledge its past deeds in Asia. I like their personal approach. It's the best way to spread the peace message around the world. World peace may be a naive goal but what's the alternative?
medievaltimes at 12:57 AM JST - 9th September

Mr./Ms. ULTRA - To put it in short, I think you are assuming I am implying things I never implied. Read our posts again.

Again you said "Civilians are no longer justified targets in war."

It doesnt matter if YOU think it is justified...the real question is, what if someone DOES think it is justified? (which of course is reality)

It would be great if everyone played by the same rules, but they dont.

Intentional killing of civilians is a military/political option that some people choose to use. It doesnt mean I agree with it.

I have never been in combat but the above has been offered to me by veterans of four seperate wars...one of which is currently ongoing.
ca1ic0cat at 02:55 AM JST - 9th September

I think a lot of the disagreement is over the use of the word "mistake" by one survivor to describe the use of nuclear weapons.

Viewed in the context of 1945 the use of nukes was not a "mistake." It was a last effort to stop the war before putting the invasion plan in motion. There really wasn't a lot of wiggle room. The weapon was available, the war meant that it was going to be used.

The idea that civilians aren't harmed in war goes back to the American Civil war and before. But this has always been a farce. Sherman's march through Georgia put an end to the pretense. But barbarity against the civilian population goes back through history and no country facing open hostilities is going to shrink from doing what they deem necessary.

If people would start being a little pragmatic in their notions of who gets hurt in war perhaps they wouldn't be so interested in starting the shooting. Because everybody does, even the winners.
OssanULTRA at 05:43 AM JST - 9th September

medivaltimes

Again you said "Civilians are no longer justified targets in war." It doesnt matter if YOU think it is justified...the real question is, >what if someone DOES think it is justified? (which of course is reality)

You're right it doesn't mastter if I think killing civilians isn't justified. So let's look at he Geneva Convention which states: "7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives."

It would be great if everyone played by the same rules, but they dont. Intentional killing of civilians is a military/political option that >some people choose to use. It doesnt mean I agree with it.

Again, I repeat, the deliberate targeting of civilians in flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention is a War Crime. It has not been practiced by ther major nations since WWII. Examples of such deliberate killing of civilians are now limited to specific instances, often in third world internal wars. In the case of Kosoco, War Crimes are in fact being prosecuted. Intentional killing of civilians for the developed countries in the world is NOT an option.

I have never been in combat but the above has been offered to me by >veterans of four seperate wars...one of which is currently ongoing.

If you talk to veterans of past wars of course. I have already stated that WWII was the last war in which nations openly targeted civilians. There have been incidents in both the Korean War and in Vietnam where civilians were deliberately targeted but not under any official policy. Now please tell me which ongoing war right now involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. And I am not talking about collateral damage.
medievaltimes at 09:16 AM JST - 9th September

Now please tell me which ongoing war right now involves the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Iraq.
yosun at 01:47 PM JST - 9th September

Alphaape: the barking dogs (NKorea & Iran) bark because of scared rather than they really want to bite people. yes, some homeless dogs who don't bark are really dangerous, suppose they really bite people, can u kill other 99% innocent dogs nearby?
stipend at 12:46 PM JST - 11th September

The Peace Boat is soliciting donations as it shoulders most of the travel costs of the atomic-bomb survivors.

Private company exploits volunteers, international crew and still wants hand outs?

"Money sloshing around" is how one insider described the relationship to me between Peace Boat and Japan Grace, the parent company. It is private for profit.

So show us the books Peace Boat! And then get on with saving the planet.