There will be a major protest rally to commemorate the anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, from 6-9 p.m., Saturday, Aug. 6, starting at at William Payne Park, across the street from the Livermore Lab at the corner of Vasco and Patterson Pass roads. Near the conclusion of the rally, there will be a procession to lab. For more information, visit [Web Link www.trivalleycares.org].
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, August 4, 2011, 5:12 PM
Posted by Andrew, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 9:24 am
It has been estimated that the invasion of Japan could have cost as many as many as 500,000 more Allied lives, dropping the bombs was the right decision for that time. My prayers to those who died and to those who suffered, I cannot imagine what that must have been like.
Posted by Julia, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 9:46 am
The protester's are a bunch of clueless folks that have no idea what it was all about. I would bet my life that every single one out there protesting wasn't even thought of. I could say it another way but I know the editor would remove it...so I will just let it fly as spoken.
Posted by Kim, a resident of the Rosewood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 9:55 am
Wow, the sickies are out in full force today. Let's see, I have a nuclear bomb and I face a choice: drop it on a military target, or drop it on a major population center which has virtually no military capability. Hands down, Andrew "It is estimated" and Julia the hater would obviously opt for choice number two. Go figure.
Posted by mooseturd, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 10:37 am mooseturd is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
What's with the name calling Kim? This question has been debated by rational, knowledgeable folks for a few years now. I think we should all just get along. I also think the protesters should crawl back under their rock.
Posted by Pat, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 10:44 am
"I also think the protesters should crawl back under their rock."
If the "question has been debated by rational, knowledgeable folks for a few years now," why do you want the protesters to go away? Weren't there two sides to the question? It wasn't an easy decision for Truman. Probably soldiers lives were saved but many civilian lives were lost as a result.
Posted by Kim, a resident of the Rosewood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 10:45 am
Oh, yes, and then after that first bomb on a major population is dropped, then drop a second on another nonmilitary major population, you know, so that they'll give us their attention. USA! USA! WE ARE THE EXCEPTIONAL ONES WHO CAN DO NO EVIL!!! Let the friends and relatives of the hundreds of thousands of innocents who died from our patriot love bombs never forget how powerful we are. Dropping those two atomic bombs was necessary. Let's hope we are given cause and opportunity do it again.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 10:50 am
A "major protest" rally? What are we protesting?
I just returned from Honolulu yesterday, where nearly 1,000 Americans still lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor ... the result of an unprovoked and brutal surprise attack that killed some 2,400 Americans, and which forced America reluctantly into WWII. The Pacific Fleet was all but obliterated, but it spent only about six months to recover and gain the advantage that would assure its ultimate victory. That the Japanese refused to stand down for about three more years was its own choice ... one that caused the death tolls to rise horrifically on all sides. Let's not forget Japan's crimes against Prisoners of War as the conflict dragged on and on. Japan routinely killed POWs in captivity, ultimately killing a half million, and over 10,000 of those were Americans. And how about the final score of Japan's war crimes against humanity: by some estimates as high as 30 million citizens from China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaya, Philippines, Burma, and other Pacific islands.
With the European war over, much of the world community was urging Japan to admit defeat and end WWII. It refused, and for the first half of 1945 Allied forces continued to engage the proud but doomed enemy from the air. An eventual and costly land invasion was inevitable, but thankfully was averted due to the technology of the new weapon. And it took not one strike, but two strikes, to finally effect the end of the war.
Are we protesting retaliatory strikes on August 6th? Do we protest first strikes on December 7th? By August 6, 1945, WWII had claimed the lives of some 75 million people. We're protesting the END of the war?
Posted by Kim, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 10:56 am
Apparently some are too thick-headed to recognize the difference between an attack on a military site of Pearl Harbor as an act of war -- a site where military operations were gearing up for an inevitable war against Japan -- and dropping two atomic bombs on nonmilitary populations, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, and left untold others and their offspring sick and deformed.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
Apparently some are to thick headed to understand it was estimated that Japan slaughtered an estimated 30 million CIVILIANS, not military personel, but civilians throughout their region, just as stated by Paul above. Where are the protest against that? Oh I forgot, the protesters are blinded by their pure hatred of the same country that they call home.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 11:31 am
I'm going to have to side with Kim on this one. There was no military justification for dropping those bombs on major population centers. As Kim pointed out, the Pearl Harbor attack was directed against military targets. They didn't fire-bomb downtown Honolulu. They directed their attacks against warships and other military targets. The bombings of the two Japanese cities, on the other hand, were directed against the civilian populations of those cities. In short, they were "terror attacks" pure and simple. I know that labeling these bombings as "terror attacks" is unpopular, but I don't see how it is inappropriate given the fact that the targets were the civilian populations.
It's interesting to note that terrorists almost never break new moral barriers in their attacks. Just about everything that they've done or contemplate doing has all already been done or contemplated by national governments. Chemical warfare? National governments have been there, done that. Biological warfare experiments on animals? Governments have been there, done that. And now with the bombing of those two Japanese cities, terrorists can claim that they aren't breaking any new moral barrier if they attack an American city with such a weapon. They can claim that since they are at war they are just as justified in using such weapons as the US was when it was at war in 1945.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 11:36 am
Pearl Harbor was not an act of war. It was an act of terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war. Both cities held high value military installations.
As for civilian casualties: WWII Japanese losses totaled about 2 million people, and about 500,000 of those were civilians (most of those occurring during the final stages of the war). China, as a result of Japanese aggression, lost 20 million lives, 16,000 of those were civilians. Japan, as a matter of historical fact, was guilty of the most obscene crimes against civilian humanity during the conflict.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Paul said: "Both cities held high value military installations."
You should do a little reading up on history rather than trying to base your arguments on your own wishful thinking. The thinking of the American leaders of the time, military and civilian, was that by inflicting massive casualties they could affect the morale of the civilian population and the thinking of the enemy leaders. This line of thinking clearly comes out in the memos and other documents that the American planners generated at the time. Historical fact. The same sort of logic applied to other city targets. Do you think that Dresden firebombed with the purpose of attacking military targets? Or Tokyo? Nope. In each case the primary targets were the civilian populations.
Now what's the moral difference between a military targeting a civilian population for massive death and destruction and a terrorist targeting a civilian population for massive death and destruction? See a moral difference? I don't.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sam ... you are correct. By that stage in the war, civilian population centers were about all that was left. The moral difference about which you ask is easy to answer: in the summer of 1945, Allied forces did the world (and especially Japan) a favor by accelerating the end of the war.
Posted by Eric, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Let's see. Japan was played out militarily, with no military sites left to bomb. Ergo: let us save Japan's civilians and the rest of the world by dropping two atomic bombs on civilian centers. Kids, go to school, please. Learn how to reason with your minds.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Wow, did I give 'reasoning' in my prior post? No. Did not even mention dropping the bomb. Did not give my opinion on dropping the bomb. I asked a simple question. I'll try again and see if I get an answer. Where are the 'major' protests against Japan for their atrocities, or Germany for their atrocities? There are none, because as I stated before, and it obviously was correct by the response, the protesters are blinded by their pure hatred of the same country that they call home.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Canyon Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm
For Sam's benefit, I will rephrase.
Japan waged war against the USA for 1,348 consecutive days. I imagine that Americans were in harm's way, and perhaps dying, on every single one of them. If you were given the option of extending the war six or twelve months and amassing maybe hundreds of thousands of additional casualties versus terminating the insanity ASAP for far less loss of life on both sides, which would you choose? You must believe that American combatants, their families, and all compassionate Americans back home would have chosen the latter. I suppose that the enemy would have, too. That's whose opinion matters: the citizens on both sides who had their lives derailed, and ended prematurely, during the period of December 7, 1941 through August 15, 1945.
Eric opines that Japan was "played out militarily". Maybe it was, but its leadership didn't cease fire. Despite being given ample opportunity, it didn't cease fire and, in fact, declared that it never would. Americans don't stop dying until a surrender is declared.
As for the school children, Eric: let us hope that they are being taught history from the perspective of the history-makers. Only then will they know the truth. Only from there can they form their own opinions.
Why is it that every August the vocal minority has to attempt to preach about the evil of "the bomb"? All bombs are evil. Had the Allies inflicted identical damage on August 6th and 9th using conventional munitions, would there be no discussion at all?
How about we use this time to remind ourselves that we should not attempt to annihilate our neighbors and steal their territory by force. If nobody strikes first, then nobody gets hurt. Ever.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Well, actually Paul, Eric was simply echoing your own thoughts when you said that "civilian population centers were about all that was left". But instead of taking the opportunity to reflect on the meaning of your own words and what it says about the decision to use The Bomb, you sidestepped the issue entirely. Or didn't you get the meaning of the earlier hint to you?
Posted by Eric, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm
In fact, the US had many options other than dropping two atomic bombs on innocents. It wasn't as simplistic as Paul wants himself so much to believe. Truman could have modified his 'unconditional surrender' demand which he directed at the Emperor. The Japanese people were spent; only the Emperor was dogged in his determination to carry on. Instead, as a message to the Soviets and in a crushing demonstration of racial hatred that had been consistently manifested against Asians in America over several decades, Truman pulled the trigger. Then came endless dissembling about the need for the act.
Steve, you seem to have gotten along the way to the demonstration haven't you? I agree with you, though, we need more demonstrations against any and all acts of barbarism, foreign as well as those perpetrated by Americans against innocents. Say, ever hear of the Holocaust memorials and museums located around the US? Just askin'. That's H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T. Check it out.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2011 at 11:44 am
Kim and her like refer to the two bombed sites as civilian centers. All cities of the world are 'civilian centers', however you fail to remember or understand that the whole of that nation was fervently war mongering. Do you not recall the horrors they unleashed on other countries, too, like China and Korea? The Chinese of Western China are still thankful to this day, that we got involved and helped to rid them of the Japanese devils.
I've lived in both countries (Japan and China), by the way, and it is all much more complex than you naysayers can imagine. Japan would have ruled the world if possible and they were ruthless, evil b...'s who defiled women and children during their conquests.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2011 at 11:50 am
Pat, you say that they are protesting over what is 'felt' to be overlooked. The fact is... the Japanese textbooks and all public traces of evidence ARE overlooked.
Travel to Hiroshima and there is no mention of Pearl Harbor or any actions of Japanese war deeds. Seems those two went hand in hand. The beginning and the end.
In modern day Tokyo, I had a man in his 60's ask my why Americans are so war hungry while the Japanese are all about peace. ALL ABOUT PEACE?!? I wanted to scream TORA TORA TORA but instead tried to converse on the topic, as his eyes glazed over.
Posted by Jarrod, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Steve/Mary, both entirely lost in hatred and self-righteousness. Nobody is denying the Japanese inflicted awful violence upon much of Asia. We knew we had to bait them into a war; problem was, they struck where we weren't expecting it. They had every opportunity to return to Pearl Harbor mere hours later and wreak havoc upon the civilian centers, but they chose not to as the military objective had been achieved.
Yes, Japan bad. Japan civilians must be punished with 2 nukes. Russia bad too. 3 nukes. Iran bad. 5 nukes. Afghanistan bad. Carpet bomb (no 'ideal' population centers -- D. Rummy).
Instead of basking in hatred, come out into the sunshine and join the human race.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Jarrod, It is interesting you would call me (and Steve) lost in hatred and sel-righteousness, as well as infer that I would support continued nuking of anything. You are quite judgemental, particularly when you know nothing about me except for a brief couple of comments about the Japanese and the bombings. I happen to have fallen in love with the CURRENT Japanese society and people, and have maintained friendships there for decades.
Facts are facts, and what was done had an intention, which worked. Go hold your arguement with the ravaged Chinese and Koreans. Share your judgements with the families of "sex camp" detainees, where they kept untold thousands of Korean women hostage to rev up the Japanese soldiers. Raped and maimed ... and to this day, never offering up an apology.
The mindset in that culture, and of that era, was quite heinous. I don't think our culture or military had such heinous intentions.
Given those facts, I don't wish to see another nuke used any where for any reason. War is horrible. So I'll join you in the sunshine, as long as you open your mind to opinions without spewing judgment.
Posted by Jarrod, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Yes, well I guess on your reasoning, Mary, we should've nuked ourselves during the centuries we hideously used our slaves to rev up their masters. Happy to hear you voice such heart-felt sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children we killed and maimed and deformed with nukes. And glad you've reflected on the many better ways we could have ended the war without the carnage we left in our wake.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 7, 2011 at 8:48 am
Mary said: "Facts are facts, and what was done had an intention, which worked."
Nice application of "the ends justifies the means" logic, Mary. The fact is, terrorism as practiced by groups such as Al Qaeda are not random events. The terrorist acts are done with an intention, and they often work in achieving their goal. For you to justify the mass murder of civilian because what was done "had an intention which worked" shows that your moral compass is just as broken as that of the most hardened terrorist.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Sam, the facts I was referring to, which don't appear to be a portion of your education, were the facts about Japanese atrocities against just about everyone. The war needed to end. My mistake.
The holocaust needed to end, also. You and Jarrod would believe that we killed innocent Germans and used excessive force in those efforts?
It appears Sam and Jarrod are two of the local high school teachers who continuously drill their hatred towards our own country into the heads of our youth. My children were a bit sick of it, actually. Most important thing is to learn from past aggressions.
P.S. I'd suggest you boys read up on the history of Japan. Whoops, that's right. It would be pretty impossible because their textbooks rewrote their history, and our textbooks surely did the same about them. We're out of luck.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Mary said: "It appears Sam and Jarrod are two of the local high school teachers who continuously drill their hatred towards our own country into the heads of our youth."
LOL! Oh, no, Mary! You were doing so well with your debating - well, at least better than many others taking your position here - but then you had to ruin it all by going off on some bizarre off-topic rant about your feelings about local high school teachers. Wha..? Where did that come from? OK, Mary. You believe what you want to believe atomic bombings or high school teachers or whatever. I think we're through here.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2011 at 9:08 am
Now that's the way war should be condcuted and ended. Decisive victory with no ambiguity or dragging of feet for years. Part of the goal of defeating an enemy is to demoralize their troops and the populace so that the continuation of hostilities will no longer be supported. A decisive, dramatic mission can be enough to turn the tide and end the war much more quickly than observing some PC policy that drags the conflict on for years on end, eventually taking a larger toll over time than one swift attack.
War is no longer waged in this way becasue no one has the gut for it. Waging a war may be the last thing anyone wants to resort to, but if it's deemed necessary, better to win it than sacrifice for nothing.