Maybe because they understand how effective they are? And want to keep that as an option for themselves if the US ever abandons them?
Japan, despite having a record number of irradiated cities and citizens, nonetheless also uses nuclear power generation. Certainly, their reaction to being atomic bombed was not a complete rejection of all things nuclear.
Well, we picked up Harry Truman floating down from Independence
We said “What about the war?”, he said “Good riddance”
We said “What about the Bomb, are you sorry that you did it?”
He said “Pass me that bottle, and mind your own business”
And then, there was the Japanese Nuclear Weapons Reasearch Programs.
Programs, PLURAL.
One for Army, one Navy.
Certainly some of Japan’s right-wingers share that opinion, though the government rarely breathes a word of it. I’ve heard wild talk that given Japan’s robust nuclear power industry, space program, and expertise in electronics, they’d be about a year from developing nuclear missiles if they chose to do so. Which they’re not even proposing, but they’re also not signing the treaty either.
My point there is, if Japan wants to posture about nuclear weapons being an intolerable evil that should never again be used, and should be banished from the earth, they’re not exactly walking the walk.
I see no evidence that Japan is doing that. If you have a cite please provide it.
Japan would certainly prefer that such weapons never be used again, and no doubt their experience is a factor in that stance. Some Japanese no doubt do think nuclear weapons are intolerable because the nation of Japan is composed of individuals with a wide range of opinions and preferences. As you note, though, there are some Japanese at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I haven’t looked up the current official position of the Japanese government on nuclear weapons because I don’t have time this morning, but regardless I do not expect the citizens of Japan to have a unanimous opinion on the topic.
I’m not providing a cite for something that I didn’t state, but I’ll rephrase what I did say for clarity: It’s widely held that Japan is a “de facto nuclear state”, meaning they possess all the capabilities needed to develop a nuclear missile very quickly if they chose to do so.
You can read more about that in the Wikipedia article on Japanese nuclear weapons programs, specifically under the heading “De facto nuclear weapons state. Again I haven’t said they’re pursuing this, and there’s nothing particularly nefarious about being an advanced industrial nation having the potential to produce such weapons.
Presumably Japan is more trustworthy and sober with this capability than most other countries we could name. But it’s somewhat eyebrow-raising that a country who protests nuclear weapons so loudly, and has a latent nuclear capacity, is conspicuously declining to sign the UN treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. And from time time time, far-right fringe politicians do advocate for a Japanese nuclear deterrent.
A great uncle of mine was killed (I believe might still technically be MIA though according to my father nobody ever expected to even get his body back) in the Italian campaign, I believe at either Monte Cassino or Anzio. Nearly 80 years later somebody related to either the DoD or the Army reached out to my father asking if he’d be willing to give a DNA sample to see if they could find a match to repatriate. He did and they didn’t. Says something that so much later there were still attempts to send remains home.
Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate your effort in making that post.
The Germans surrendered unconditionally (after Hitler was dead and Russia had captured Berlin, but up to that point there had been no peace negotiations.) Why should the Japanese be given any better terms?
So we had already seen how a German soldier ordered to fight to death would fight to the death, and we had seen how a Japanese soldier ordered to fight to the death would fight to death.
Not to bring current events too deeply into this thread, but how are negotiations going in our current global hot spots?
They shouldn’t. Japan’s unprovoked attacked on Hawaii, a U.S. territory at the time, was as bad as it gets. Hitler’s declaration of war didn’t involve any attack on us at all.
It has already been mentioned that people like Bomber Harris found it OK and justified to take out German cities (with the comcomitant civilian casualties and so on). Why would they feel differently about Japanese cities?
Who’s they?
They who ordered strategic firebombing, and nuking, of Japanese cities.
Sir Arthur Travers Harris was a psychotic commander dedicated to killing German civilians by fire bombing German cities. He supported Churchills’ propaganda needs. Totally unrelated to the US in the Pacific.
The 1945 attitude of the American public toward the Japanese was developed during years of killing all the Japanese inhabitants of South Pacific islands. To the citizens of the US, Japan was just another island.
Nitpick, while in general the Germans did follow orders, in Stalingrad and other places, the Germans did follow the orders to fight to the end, “the end” there was not what Hitler wanted.
Paulus and his staff surrendered on the morning of 31 January 1943. The events of that day were recorded by Colonel Wilhelm Adam, one of Paulus’ aides and an adjutant in the XXIII Army Corps, in his personal diary:
“Paulus awoke and sat up. It was the HQ commander. He handed the colonel general a piece of paper and said: ‘Congratulations. The rank of field marshal has been conferred upon you. The dispatch came early this morning—it was the last one.’
‘One can’t help feeling it’s an invitation to suicide. However I’m not going to do them such a favour.’ said Paulus after reading the dispatch.”
Hitler told his staff:
“In peacetime Germany, about 18,000 or 20,000 people a year chose to commit suicide, even without being in such a position. Here is a man who sees 50,000 or 60,000 of his soldiers die defending themselves bravely to the end. How can he surrender himself to the Bolshevists?!”[17]
Paulus, a Roman Catholic, was opposed to suicide. During his captivity, according to General Max Pfeffer, Paulus said, “I have no intention of shooting myself for this Bohemian corporal.” Paulus also forbade his soldiers from standing on top of their trenches in order to be shot by the enemy.[18]
It was him and the still remaining 91,000 German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad.
Is what they did to Russian civilians ‘defending themselves bravely’.
My understanding is that future atomic bombs would have been set aside and used in conjunction with the planned invasion.
Quite likely.
Yes it was justified.
Here’s the transcript of a phone conversation between General Hull, the Vice Chief of Staff and Director of Operations for the Army, and Colonel Seeman on General Groves staff. It took place on Aug 13, so 4 days after Nagasaki, and 2 days before the surrender. Hull essentially stated they were possibly/likely going to change the original plan of using the bombs as they became available, to stockpiling them for the invasion in November, the thought being that if 2 bombs didn’t convince them to surrender, there’s no reason to suppose a 3rd, 4th etc would. Seeman said there was one bomb available immediately that was scheduled to be dropped on Aug 19, then expect 3 in September, 3 in October, and one every 10 days for the foreseeable future. Hull said they were planning on using them in the invasion, to support beach landings by “neutralizing a division or a communication center” immediately before the invasion.
I’m not sure there’d be a Japan any more if that’s how things worked out.