A-bomb survivors expect Obama to work for nuclear-free world

Thursday 22nd January, 05:17 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 24 Total Comments Show All

martyman at 10:48 PM JST - 22nd January

Obamanonics at its best! Nuclear weapons, military down sizing, payroll freezing! Look out, the next 120 days will be quite the eyeopener. You can even ask Reverend White is veiws of having an African American in the white house as the Commander in Chief and what it means to the world!

Unfortuneately, I dont see the decline of the nuclear arsenal dropping any time soon. Or do we?
NeoJamal at 10:57 PM JST - 22nd January

Still scary that the former junior senator is technically in charge of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal.

Oh yes, the fact that the second largest nuclear stock pile in the world that existed for just over 60 years, and controlled by the nation that has actually used it TWICE against several hundred thousand civilians is now at the command of some new American bigwig who hasn't seen his 50th birthday is a shocking revelation to the world.
Ninjazilla at 11:02 PM JST - 22nd January

CaptDingleheimer you said it.
kwatt at 11:13 PM JST - 22nd January

People maybe start to think "nuclear-free world" more seriously after a-bomb was dropped on your backyard.
usaexpat at 12:34 AM JST - 23rd January

Not gonna happen: Obama has 2 wars to deal with, an economy in severe recession and a myriad of other problems. Striving for a nuke free world is probably not even on his radar.
Nordon at 06:51 AM JST - 23rd January

Obama isn't working for a Nuke free world. He can't accomplish that in his tenure or and extended 8 year presidency. Nor could dozens of presidents working on a nuke free world accomplish that.

He's just going to settle for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Good_Jorb at 07:35 AM JST - 23rd January

A-bomb survivors, North Korea abductees, Obama dancing girls... Hey Japan- nobody cares, nobody notices.

Was one the A-bomb survivors in the article named Japan? Otherwise your statement makes no sense and is in poor taste. None of the A-bomb survivors in the article hold any elected positions, and therefore aren't speaking on behalf of Japan, but rather they represent what they are, A-bomb survivors. So you are saying that because of thier race/nationality their opinion is less valid than others? That even though they survived the A-bomb, because they are Japanese, thier opinions about a nuclear-free world worthless?

Did these A-bomb survivors ever have anything to say about those recent documents which detailed Japan advocating the use of nuclear weapons by the US against China in the 50s or 60s

Would they have been privy to such knowledge at that time?
mimitchy at 07:46 AM JST - 23rd January

He's just going to settle for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons

Yes, we cannot allow less-powerful countries to retaliatate against the US when the later inflicts another 'Hiroshima' upon them.

Also any attempts to disarm the US of its nuclear weapons would be a kick in balls for every Hiroshima apologist out there (who are mostly American).
medievaltimes at 01:33 PM JST - 23rd January

People maybe start to think "nuclear-free world" more seriously after a-bomb was dropped on your backyard.

Or maybe people will start thinking that colonizing all of Asia is a bad idea for fear of an a-bomb being dropped in their backyard.
NeoJamal at 07:25 PM JST - 23rd January

Or maybe people will start thinking that colonizing all of Asia is a bad idea for fear of an a-bomb being dropped in their backyard.

A-bomb apologist at work
wawawasuremono at 08:03 PM JST - 23rd January

It's worth emphasising that the pro-nuclear arms camp from the NPT states will only justify the use of nuclear arms to preserve interests of their own nations. Whatever purported 'objective justification' for the maintenance of nuclear arms will shed the objective facade when we ask them a question like this: "Do you support the use of nuclear weapons by Iraqis against the US in retaliation for the aggression against their country?" You get interesting answers like "The Iraqi invasion is not aggression" (denial) or that "America is the land of Gawwd.."(you know where this is going).
NeoJamal at 09:23 PM JST - 23rd January

It's worth emphasising that the pro-nuclear arms camp from the NPT states will only justify the use of nuclear arms to preserve interests of their own nations. Whatever purported 'objective justification' for the maintenance of nuclear arms will shed the objective facade when we ask them a question like this: "Do you support the use of nuclear weapons by Iraqis against the US in retaliation for the aggression against their country?" You get interesting answers like "The Iraqi invasion is not aggression" (denial) or that "America is the land of Gawwd.."(you know where this is going).

LMAO are you Unclejamal? If you are I want to buy you are beer. Unclejamal is the inspiration for my handle name. He was apparently a law student in Australia and stopped posting on JT since a while ago as some poster said he graduated and is in practise. If you are UJ please PM me!
medievaltimes at 10:40 PM JST - 23rd January

NeoJamal - What do you mean exactly by "apologist"? I'm not trying to have a go at you, it's just that the word means many things to many people. I want to know in more detail what you mean by that and how it applies to my comment.
EurajReturns at 01:15 PM JST - 24th January

Yeah, Obama's going to get rid of ten thousand nukes. Saving the economy will be easier.
johancohen at 03:08 PM JST - 24th January

nuclear freedom comes with a high price tag, and negotiations pertinent to that ponderous concern reveals realistic costs on the tarriff side.