Is it possible that United States will officially apologize in future for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Status
Closed
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
According to this article, America has officially apologized five times which does not include atomic bombings of Japan (a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history). Or America does not hold herself accountable for war crimes outside United States ? (all the five apologizes are for happenings within the territory of United States).

After watching Chernobyl mini-series on HBO, one gets an idea about the horrors of nuclear radiations yet United States has always refused to apologize for nuking Japan.

No Apology For Hiroshima
 
Jun 2017
2,988
Connecticut
According to this article, America has officially apologized five times which does not include atomic bombings of Japan (a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history). Or America does not hold herself accountable for war crimes outside United States ? (all the five apologizes are for happenings within the territory of United States).

After watching Chernobyl mini-series on HBO, one gets an idea about the horrors of nuclear radiations yet United States has always refused to apologize for nuking Japan.

No Apology For Hiroshima
It's possible in the far future. There's a difference between someone saying I'm sorry and the government officially saying it was a mistake. The consensus in the US is that the atomic bombings saved a ton of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost to an invasion. I think most Americans are sorry about the bombings but that's not the same as saying the decision was wrong. The Japanese indicated very heavily both through their fierce resistance over tiny islands and their propaganda that they were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child and that hyperbole is what led to Truman's decision. Did the Japs think the US could be forced into a peace settlement(true Unconditional surrender throughout history between great powers is rare and I understand why the Japs might have thought it was all talk) and was the US's ultimatum of destruction too vague to qualify as a serious warning? Yup but given the proportionality doctrine the bombings were in the best interest of the service members under Truman's command and the Japanese citizens of every other location in the country whose lives didn't end as a result. Under that logic the decision should not be apologized for and were for the benefit of the most people on both sides of the conflict.

Second bombing is more questionable than the first given that the first might have been enough to induce surrender in which case those deaths are for nothing and I'd somewhat agree with the spirit of the OP..
 

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,163
Kansas
According to this article, America has officially apologized five times which does not include atomic bombings of Japan (a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history).
So what exactly have the Japanese apologized for?

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon and Futurist
Jun 2011
313
The Old Dominion
(a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history). . .
In your expert opinion, of course.

Sure, here you go, no problem, an American apology: "I am sorry that the Japanese intransigence on the matter of surrender made the use of these weapons necessary. Just as I am sorry that some people are clueless as to the definitions of 'war crime' or 'terrorism' in a historical context."
 

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,163
Kansas
In your expert opinion, of course.

Sure, here you go, an American apology: "I regret and am sorry that the Japanese intransigence on the matter of surrender made the use of these weapons necessary. Just as I regret and am sorry that some people are clueless as to the definition of "war crime" or "terrorism".
Yes I wonder how the OP would characterize the rape Nanjing
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,828
USA
According to this article, America has officially apologized five times which does not include atomic bombings of Japan (a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history). Or America does not hold herself accountable for war crimes outside United States ? (all the five apologizes are for happenings within the territory of United States).

After watching Chernobyl mini-series on HBO, one gets an idea about the horrors of nuclear radiations yet United States has always refused to apologize for nuking Japan.

No Apology For Hiroshima
Why should USA apologize for atomic bombing, when it was a justifiable act?
"Greatest incident of terrorism in human history" was 9/11 by Muslims.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,736
San Antonio, Tx
According to this article, America has officially apologized five times which does not include atomic bombings of Japan (a greatest war crime and greatest incident of terrorism in human history). Or America does not hold herself accountable for war crimes outside United States ? (all the five apologizes are for happenings within the territory of United States).

After watching Chernobyl mini-series on HBO, one gets an idea about the horrors of nuclear radiations yet United States has always refused to apologize for nuking Japan.

No Apology For Hiroshima
Before I read the other posts after this one, I just want to say “No, and hell no”.

In the first place, aside from all the sound reasons for dropping the bombs, who attacked whom here? If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, I can assure you that no atomic bombs would have been dropped at all. Yes, the bombs were terrible and powerful and caused tremendous damage, but, honestly, the air campaigns against Japan had already caused much greater damage around Japan than the bombs did, so the only thing really unusual about these bombs is that it only took one aircraft to cause this destruction. Is that what you’re objecting to - that it only took a single aircraft instead of the hundreds and thousands that had already done the same?

I dislike revisionist history and you are an example of that. There was no ban against dropping an atomic bomb and the effects of radiation were not understood at the time. There was no prohibition against atomic weapons at the time. In fact, they’re is no prohibition against the deployment of atomic weapons today. If they were prohibited today, I would be fine with that, but obviously, they have not been prohibited at all, so just what are you talking about?

If you just want to rant about the US, why not be honest and just say so, but don’t use bogus and dumb arguments to criticize the US “indirectly’ which is a rather cowardly thing to do. Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe you can “pre-apologize” for the incendiary use of Pakistan’s nukes when they are launched against India. Hypocrite.

Photo is of Nagasaki today.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,733
SoCal
It's possible in the far future. There's a difference between someone saying I'm sorry and the government officially saying it was a mistake. The consensus in the US is that the atomic bombings saved a ton of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost to an invasion. I think most Americans are sorry about the bombings but that's not the same as saying the decision was wrong. The Japanese indicated very heavily both through their fierce resistance over tiny islands and their propaganda that they were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child and that hyperbole is what led to Truman's decision. Did the Japs think the US could be forced into a peace settlement(true Unconditional surrender throughout history between great powers is rare and I understand why the Japs might have thought it was all talk) and was the US's ultimatum of destruction too vague to qualify as a serious warning? Yup but given the proportionality doctrine the bombings were in the best interest of the service members under Truman's command and the Japanese citizens of every other location in the country whose lives didn't end as a result. Under that logic the decision should not be apologized for and were for the benefit of the most people on both sides of the conflict.

Second bombing is more questionable than the first given that the first might have been enough to induce surrender in which case those deaths are for nothing and I'd somewhat agree with the spirit of the OP..
How exactly do you know that the first bombing might have been enough?
 
Status
Closed