Nagasaki marks 63rd anniversary of atomic bombing

Saturday 09th August, 10:56 AM JST

NAGASAKI —

Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue urged the world’s nuclear powers Saturday to abandon nuclear weapons on the 63rd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city in 1945, citing an appeal made by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and three other former senior U.S. officials.

In this year’s Peace Declaration read at a ceremony held in the Peace Park in the southwestern Japan city that was devastated by the atomic bombing three days after the city of Hiroshima, the mayor said the appeal mirrors ‘‘those we have been making repeatedly in Nagasaki.’‘

‘‘The reverberations of a written appeal titled ‘Toward a Nuclear-Free World’ are being felt around the world,’’ Taue said, adding that the appeal was authored by four men who promoted nuclear policy under successive presidents.

The four—former U.S. Secretaries of State Kissinger and George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn—are now calling for the leaders of all the nuclear powers to work intensively to reduce nuclear weapons with the common aim of creating a world without nuclear weapons, Taue said.

A moment of silence was observed at 11:02 a.m., the time when a U.S. B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the city, which killed an estimated 74,000 people by the end of 1945. Japan surrendered six days after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, bringing an end to World War II in the Pacific theater.

At the ceremony, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda pledged to firmly maintain Japan’s three avowed principles of not producing, possessing or allowing nuclear weapons on its soil in a speech similar to one he delivered in Hiroshima.

About 5,400 people took part in the 60-minute ceremony, which was attended by representatives from eight nations including Russia.

In the declaration, Taue also mentioned Takashi Nagai, a Nagasaki doctor who treated atomic-bomb victims after surviving the bombing himself, as this year marks the 100th anniversary of Nagai’s birth.

Citing Nagai’s remark that ‘‘There is no winning or losing in war; there is only ruin,’’ the mayor said, ‘‘His words transcend time in reminding the world of the preciousness of peace and continue today to sound a warning to humankind.’‘

He also urged the Japanese government to cooperate with the international community to forcefully demand that North Korea completely destroys its nuclear arsenal.

This year’s anniversary comes as the six countries involved in talks on denuclearizing North Korea seek to set up a regime to verify North Korea’s declaration of its nuclear programs.

‘‘Japan, as a nation that has experienced nuclear devastation, has a mission and a duty to take a leadership role in the elimination of nuclear weapons,’’ Taue said.

Noting that atomic-bomb survivors are aging, Taue demanded that the Japanese government quickly provide support for the survivors both in Japan and abroad.

The government has suffered 10 consecutive losses connected to lawsuits over the recognition of atomic-bomb survivors as suffering from atomic bomb-related illnesses, with courts declaring illegal the government’s fixed criteria that bar many survivors from receiving expanded medical benefits.

Former Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma, who drew criticism for saying in June last year that the atomic bombing of Japan was something that ‘‘could not be helped,’’ a remark many atomic-bomb survivors found offensive, also attended the memorial after missing last year’s ceremony.

A total of 243,692 atomic-bomb survivors were living in and outside of Japan as of March 31, with their average age at 75.14.

This year, the names of another 3,058 people who have been recognized as victims of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki were added to the list, bringing the total number of victims to 145,984.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 23 Total Comments Show All

yabits at 09:39 PM JST - 9th August

the anti-nuclear attitude of Japan as a nation is hypocritical posturing, since Japan enjoys (!) the US's protective umbrella and that this umbrella is intrinsequely [sic] nuclear.

If Japan explicitly requested this "nuclear umbrella" you speak of, then one could say it would be hypocritical of them to profess to be against nuclear weapons. The fact is that Japan has had this umbrella imposed on her, making her a certain target in the event of war.

There are elites in Japan, just as there are in the USA, who are the ones who start the wars, and cause the destruction of many lives of ordinary people. It may be that the elites of Japan tolerate the violation of its own principles in allowing the US to bring nuclear weapons within its national boundaries, but ordinary people would certainly protest this if they knew. Corrupt and incompetent elites are a serious problem in both countries.

Certain Americans, in my view, lead the world in hypocrisy when they impose conditions on other countries and then claim that those countries should be thankful and enjoy the imposition.(A condition these same Americans would never stand for themselves.)
solarbuster at 10:07 PM JST - 9th August

Don't need to worry about Atomic weapons any more they are just toys compared to some "clean" weapons in or coming out of the pipe line. "Nuclear Umbrella" is just another word to con billions of dollar out of taxpayers pockets into those of the mega rich.
Freespeech at 10:22 PM JST - 9th August

yabits : sorry, it was "intrinsically". My poorly spelled adverb meant that the US umbrella is of a nuclear nature, you understand ? Not because at times nuclear heads might be brought within national boundaries of Japan (this is only the surface of things) but because the US protection is based on nuclear deterrence, from which it draws its credibility (even if the warheads are stored thousands of miles away from Japan).

Now, for the "explicit request", I believe that Japan has at some stage explicitely requested the continued protection of the US although they knew perfectly well that the US deterrence derived from a nuclear arsenal.

You seem to infer that poor little Japan has been under a US diktat for accepting this protection : it might have been the case in the immediate post-war years and during a period of time at least as long as the hostilities in Korea, but Japan is now in no position to say that it is being raped every day by the imposition of a protection it does not want ! Unless Japan is a banana republic, which I have not noticed.

In fact, I rather believe that the Japanese political circles play a double game, one the one side moaning for US "abuses", on the other hand enjoying all the benefits of it, which are substantial : getting the know-how, enjoying industrial cooperation for arms systems, and last but not least being able to cuddle an army that does not say its name, that has nothing risky to do, and that slowly develops its muscles to the trepidation of those who dream of new military exploits.
yabits at 01:27 AM JST - 10th August

Freespeech:

I protested your use of the term "hypocritical" to apply to all Japanese. I venture to claim that a wide majority of the Japanese people, having twice experienced the mini-holocaust caused by nuclear weapons, are opposed in principle to having those weapons used in her defense. I support that claim through the results of the few referendums which have been held where Japanese voters have been able to make their positions known. (Like the referendums in Okinawa and Yamaguchi Prefectures, where over 80% of the local voters voted against the US military position.)

You yourself claim (correctly) that the Japanese were compelled to take on US "defenders" -- in a treaty first signed in 1951. And that treaty has been widely and actively protested by ordinary Japanese over the years. Those who have remained opposed are not the people who are playing a double game.

Yet, some in Japanese political circles do play the double game -- I can agree with that. Just as Americans like yourself play it: As though the main beneficiary of the treaty imposed on Japan wasn't the USA. Or that the treaty didn't come with significant strings attached. The price that some Japanese elites were willing to pay to accept all the conditions of US protection does not reflect on the wishes of all Japanese. Every nation has that powerful group who'd be willing to sell out principles for a few pieces of silver and greater power.
Freespeech at 02:19 AM JST - 10th August

Yabits, Please, think about the words we are using. Nation and people are not equivalent in meaning. I never wrote about "all Japanese", and I agree with you that the Japanese people are not monolithic in their assessment of US assistance and resulting military presence on the territory (although some sensitivities like in Okinawa may have causes that are very remote from the nukes...). I wrote about the nation, and I maintain that Japan as a nation is hypocritical.

Otherwise, I can agree with you, particularly for your conclusion.

Aimai Nihon no watashi... (Oe Kenzaburo).

By the way : I am not American, but I belong to a nation that has made the choice of nuclear deterrence.
kimigano at 05:01 AM JST - 10th August

a wide majority of the Japanese people, having twice experienced the mini-holocaust caused by nuclear weapons

Huh? Was a wide majority of Japanese people even alive then?
yabits at 06:14 AM JST - 10th August

Freespeech:

Points well taken.
yabits at 06:18 AM JST - 10th August

kimigano:

The sentence should have read, "a wide majority of the Japanese people, living with the recent history of a nation that has twice experienced...."

I think most readers understood the gist that the majority of today's Japanese are opposed to nuclear weaponry used in her defense.
kimigano at 04:21 PM JST - 10th August

the majority of today's Japanese are opposed to nuclear weaponry used in her defense.

This needs to be backed up with proof.
yabits at 08:24 PM JST - 10th August

This needs to be backed up with proof.

How about this: If a majority of Japanese did endorse defensive nuclear weaponry, the country would have those weapons in its arsenal.

Now, if you want to take the stand that most Japanese are in favor of nukes, it is you that will have to provide some proof to back that up. Basic common sense ought to suffice for most people.
kimigano at 10:36 PM JST - 10th August

If a majority of Japanese did endorse defensive nuclear weaponry, the country would have those weapons in its arsenal.

Logical fallacy.

Yabits, you made the initial claim. I made no claim and thus have nothing to back up. All I did was ask for some sources to back up what you claim.

I guess you have nothing. Claim dismissed.
yabits at 04:37 AM JST - 11th August

Yabits, you made the initial claim. I made no claim and thus have nothing to back up.

LOL!!! How is it a logical fallacy to support a claim by first showing the absurdity of an opposite claim? If the statement you implicity cling to that causes you to require proof for my claim, that most Japanese are in favor of defending themselves with nuclear weapons -- if that claim is patently absurd to the average reader, then how much effort should be required in "proving" what is simple common sense, and observable fact?

Fact, as in the decades-long, official policy of the Japanese to NOT allow any nation to bring nuclear weapons within its boundaries. According to the Christian Science Monitor, "a recent Nippon Television poll showed that 80 percent of the population oppose the idea of Japan possessing nuclear weapons even if North Korea has them."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1106/p06s01-woap.html

Now, what reasons do you have for doubting the claim?
kimigano at 05:32 AM JST - 11th August

Yabits,

Please show us the methodology, sample size and bios of everyone who conducted the survey.

Christian Science monitor has a clear political agenda. Their polls are to be resisted by all seeking truth.

Without that information, it cannot be taken seriously.
yabits at 08:24 AM JST - 11th August

kimigano writes:

Please show us the methodology, sample size and bios of everyone who conducted the survey. Christian Science monitor has a clear political agenda. Their polls are to be resisted by all seeking truth.

First of all, I am not commenting for any writer personally, but for readers in general. I know there will always be a tiny percentage of people on the fringe who will pose ridiculous qualifiers as in the above sample. When clearly recognized as such, these types cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

Secondly, the "survey" refered to was not taken by the Christian Science Monitor, but by Nippon Television, as was clearly written. The ability to read with understanding is fundamental. If there is a problem with the polling, evidence of that should be brought forward by those who want to claim that it is not an accurate reflection. Until such evidence is produced, the poll provides substantial basis and validity for my earlier claim. (I tend to stand with evidence presented by respected organizations before I would accept something by someone who can't read with understanding.)

Lastly, turning back to the article above, it states: "At the ceremony, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda pledged to firmly maintain Japan’s three avowed principles of not producing, possessing or allowing nuclear weapons on its soil in a speech similar to one he delivered in Hiroshima."

When Prime Minister Fukuda speaks of maintaining "avowed principles," readers have reason to suspect that a majority of the Japanese people support those principles, and have done so for quite some time. In other words, that Prime Minister Fukuda is not speaking for his own principles, but ones that the nation has adhered to. The Nippon Television poll gives further creedence to that position, by providing some means of gauging just how large that majority is.
kimigano at 10:34 AM JST - 11th August

So you have no evidence at all to back up your claim?