Hiroshima (広島市 Hiroshima-shi) (
listen (help·info)) is the capital of Hiroshima Prefecture, and the largest city in the Chūgoku region of western Honshu, the largest island of Japan. It is best known as the first city in history to be targeted by a nuclear weapon when the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped an atomic bomb on it at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, near the end of World War II.[1] Its name 広島 means "Wide Island".
Hiroshima gained city status on April 1, 1889. On April 1, 1980, Hiroshima became a designated city. Kazumi Matsui has been the city's mayor since April 2011.
Hiroshima was founded on the river delta coastline of the Seto Inland Sea in 1589 by the powerful warlord Mōri Terumoto, who made it his capital after leaving Koriyama Castle in Aki Province.[2][3]Hiroshima Castle was quickly built, and Terumoto moved in, in 1593. Terumoto was on the losing side at the Battle of Sekigahara. The winner, Tokugawa Ieyasu, deprived Mori Terumoto of most of his fiefs including Hiroshima and gave Aki Province to Masanori Fukushima, a daimyo who had supported Tokugawa.[4]
) Meanwhile, in the United States, President Obama was signing a bill that would mandate health insurance for all Americans for the first time in history. What's the connection you may ask?* Note: If you aren't comfortable reading opinions that may differ from yours, or be political, philosophical, moralistic or religious in nature, feel free to skip this post. It's okay. I'm wondering that in the decades since the bombing on whether or not our morals have been evolving or devolving. Are we now willing to fore-go certain actions to avoid public disapproval, and yet absolutely willing to do any action as long as you can avoid the direct responsibility of its repercussions? In the Catholic faith, there is a concept of the sin of commission (willingly acting a particular way: e.g. shooting someone to end their life) and sin of omission (willingly neglecting to act in circumstances when you can and ought to act: e.g. knowing that someone is about steal or kill, and simply allowing them to do so.) More here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#ii. To me, A-Bombs were a sin of commission, and Health Care was a sin of omission. Now, I'm no World War II expert by any means. I've only read a smattering of materials and seen a few documentaries (from either side). And yes, I did tear up a bit (or my non-existent allergies kicked in) when I watched Grave of the Fireflies (Grave of the Fireflies (火垂るの墓 Hotaru no haka) is a 1988 Japanese animated drama film written and directed by Isao Takahata and animated by Studio Ghibli. It is based on the 1967 semi-autobiographical novel of the same name by Akiyuki Nosaka.[2] It is commonly considered an anti-war film, but this interpretation has been challenged by some critics and by the director. The film stars Tsutomu Tatsumi, Ayano Shiraishi, Yoshiko Shinohara and Akemi Yamaguchi. Predominantly set in Japan during World War II, the film tells the story of Seita, a young boy who has to take care of his younger sister Setsuko when their mother dies.
Grave of the Fireflies received positive reviews from film critics. Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times considered it to be one of the best and most powerful war films and, in 2000, included it on his "Great Movies" list.[3] Two live-action remakes of Grave of the Fireflies were made, one in 2005 and one in 2008.
The film opens on September 21, 1945, shortly after the end of World War II, at Sannomiya Station where Seita (清太), a 14-year-old boy, is seen dying of starvation. Later that night, a janitor digs through his possessions, and finds a candy tin containing ashes and bones, which he throws away into a nearby field. From the tin spring the spirits of Seita and his younger sister Setsuko (節子), as well as a cloud of fireflies. The spirit of Seita continues to narrate their story, which is, in effect, an extended flashback to Japan in the final months of World War II, beginning with the firebombing of the city of Kobe in March 16–17, 1945.
). The decision to utilize nuclear weapons and on two cities essentially came down to the following logistical reasons: 1) Based on the experience of Allied forces at land and at sea, Japanese forces were not readily surrendering.2) If it came down to a land invasion, the fear was that it would be a long and costly war in terms of casualties.
3) The idea to bomb a remote area was proposed, but was ultimately tabled since it would not likely cause the type of measurable damage that would be possible comparing to bombing military targets.
4) The ultimate goal was to create a psychological impact that would force the surrender of Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both port cities with ties to industrial / military capacities and were taken off the air raid list so that the weapons could be properly assessed. You can quickly read through the wiki, if you'd like:
Central Pacific
Southeast Asia
Southwest Pacific
It wasn't a trivial decision by any stretch of the imagination. In this particular sense, I'll take the optimistic road and believe that the primary motivation was to try limit needless casualties on both sides rather than the depressing notion that this was a way to cement military superiority for decades. Never before (and hopefully never again) was a decision on that many human lives made at a single time. Almost as a testament to the difficulty of the decision, especially for its ethical and moral implications is the fact that it is still a topic of debate. In this day and age, I couldn't imagine such a decision being made. There is no way that any nation of citizens would accept that type of decision. And yet, until the Health Care reform bill was passed, providing universal health care was not seen as a universal priority. The government for the people, and by the people should only care for its constituents until a certain point. If you can't afford health care, you must not be working hard enough to make enough money to afford health care. In effect, you chose to get sick and chose to die if you can't get better. How many people suffered and died because of limited or inadequate access to health care? How many pharmaceutical and health insurance companies have been making a steady and healthy profit for the last decade or so? We didn't logistically choose a city, and send a plane off to denote a bomb over a bustling city filled with men, women and children that chose to live in that particular city, but are we willingly choosing to ignore one group of people with a quieter voice, for the benefit of another set of people with a louder voice? I am hopeful that we as a people are gradually learning our lesson. I pray that in any of our lifetimes, we will never have to see memorials like this again.
