Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

HIROSHIMA, Japan (Reuters) -- Tens of thousands of people from around the world gathered in Hiroshima on Sunday to pray for peace and urge the world to abandon nuclear weapons on the 61st anniversary of the first atomic bombing.

In an annual ritual to mourn the more than 220,000 people who ultimately died from the blast, a crowd including survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped.

"Radiation, heat, blast and their synergetic effects created a hell on Earth," said Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba.

Lamenting a global trend towards nuclear proliferation, Akiba called for a campaign to free the world of atomic weapons.

"Sixty-one years later, the number of nations enamored of evil and enslaved by nuclear weapons is increasing," Akiba told the crowd gathered under a blazing summer sun.

"The human family stands at a crossroads. Will all nations be enslaved? Or will all nations be liberated?"

The Peace Bell tolled at 8:15 a.m. -- the moment the Enola Gay B-29 warplane dropped the bomb on Aug. 6, 1945 -- as the crowd stood and bowed their heads for a moment of silence.

The United States dropped a second atomic bomb on the southern city of Nagasaki on August 9.

Six days later, Japan surrendered.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed to abide by Japan's pacifist constitution and non-nuclear policy.

"Japan, the only country that has suffered atomic bombings in the human history, has the responsibility to keep telling the international community about its experience," Koizumi said.

"With the resolve not to let the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeat itself anywhere, Japan has delivered on its pledge not to wage war in the past 61 years."

Under Koizumi, Japan has enacted legislation allowing its troops to play a greater security role abroad and sent soldiers to Iraq on a reconstruction and humanitarian mission, the military's largest and riskiest operation since 1945.

Distant dream
Koizumi's ruling party and the main opposition party are also seeking to revise the pacifist constitution, whose Article Nine prohibits maintaining a military but which has been interpreted as allowing armed forces solely for self-defence.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed fear that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of "non-state actors".

"More than six decades after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the unspeakable horror of nuclear weapons remain etched in our collective consciousness," Annan said in a message read on his behalf during the 45-minute ceremony.

"A world without nuclear weapons may be distant, but it is not a dream," Annan said.

"The worrying possibility of dangerous nuclear material falling into the hands of non-state actors should energise efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

This year's anniversary coincides with renewed concerns about nuclear programmes by Iran and North Korea, which last month jolted the region by firing a salvo of missiles.

It also comes amid debate, intensified by Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine for war dead, over how Japan should view its responsibility for the war and the suffering it caused in Asia.

The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later.

The names of 5,350 people who died recently were added to the list of victims, bringing the total number recognised by the city to 247,787. A few thousand names are added each year.

"Cities and citizens of the world have a duty to release the lost sheep from the spell and liberate the world from nuclear weapons," Akiba said as the cries of cicadas filled the air.


Do you think the world should fight against nuclear proliferation and eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons altogether? Why or why not?


article

EDIT:

Third chose should be "Yes, but completely banning nuclear weapons isn't a reality anymore"

wait banning nukes will mean that the US will have to do it too. and you very well know that they aint giving up their nukes. The UN could declare the dismantling of all nuclear weapon sites and whatever, but since when does the US listen to the UN?

Its impossible to ban nukes.

If only the US would wise up. It's such hypocrisy to want N. Korea and Iran to disarm but we don't want to stop ourselves. It makes me sick

I think that the US would be happy to disarm... As long as everyone else is disarmed first.

Originally posted by Soth
If only the US would wise up. It's such hypocrisy to want N. Korea and Iran to disarm but we don't want to stop ourselves. It makes me sick

Are you kidding? It's hypcritical for the U.S. to want to retain it's nukes while trying to prevent Iran and N. Korea from amassing their own? Wow. Glad you're not running the state department.

You do realize that these two countries are rogue states run by homocidal maniacs? They should never be allowed to see even a gram of plutonium until they become Western-style democracies. Pure and simple.

I think that the US arsenal of Nukes is pretty useless in the current style of warfare. I mean think about it - If Al Qaeda or some other terror group managed to nuke an american city, where exactly would we send our nuke in retaliation? The MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine basically says, "you nuke us, we nuke you". But who could we actually hold responsible for a terror attack?

Originally posted by docb77
I think that the US arsenal of Nukes is pretty useless in the current style of warfare. I mean think about it - If Al Qaeda or some other terror group managed to nuke an american city, where exactly would we send our nuke in retaliation? The MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine basically says, "you nuke us, we nuke you". But who could we actually hold responsible for a terror attack?

that's why nuclear states need to disarm

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Are you kidding? It's hypcritical for the U.S. to want to retain it's nukes while trying to prevent Iran and N. Korea from amassing their own? Wow. Glad you're not running the state department.

Actually I would say it is hypocritical to be against nukes in the hands of others while one works on maintaining and occasionally expanding their own arsenal (as with the failed proposal to develop nukes that could be used in conventional fields of battle.) Concepts of MAD, nuclear deterrent etc. could potentially be put to rest with far more ease if all nations involved were more committed to it, and following the treaties etc. aimed at reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing proliferation.

And it need not be seed one of the least tractable and compliant nations with such an ideal has been the US, just like they were less then dedicated to the war courts (what, put a *US* citizen on trial for war crimes? Get out of town.)

Reducing or removing nuclear arsenals are good in an economic sense. One of the contributing factors in the death of the USSR was trying to maintain its arsenal, a massively expensive job with little in terms of economic returns. Somehow people seem to think the US is immune to this effect, but the debt of the nation has some at points tangible links to aspects of the US military.



Oooo yes. Of course. Naturally western style democracies are incapable of committing atrocities in war or using nuclear weaponry. What a delightfully idealistic view. It is relevant though, that only one nation has used weapons of a nuclear/atomic nature in actual war. And if I am not mistaken that nation would classify as one of the most western democratic of the all.

This topic is two fold.

1st being that Hiroshima was an event that none of us are capable of judging fairly. We weren't alive then, and even the people who were alive, and living in the US or Japan, weren't given the whole truth from either government. Maybe it did bring an end to a conflict that would have gone on and on...or maybe it was a cheap shot that should never have been used since a nation like Japan could have sustained their fight for only a short while longer.

2nd. As has been said by several authors and journalists, it's come time for the people of these over looked and under considered nations to be able to step up to the table with an equal playing hand in teh game of global politics. And the conservatives want to say that these people are fundamentalist wackos who want the bomb only to use it. Neither are the case. They do want the bomb so they can be taken seriously...but they also know that a few Nukes aren't going to be any match for the US (and allies) arsenal. If a terrorist state managed to deliver one or two nukes to US soil, that country would no longer exist. Period. The US would retaliate just as they did at teh end of WW2. But, to limit it to that is also irresponsible, because we are dealing with people who feel that, in the case of Iran, the deaths of thousands of fellow Muslims are a small price to pay.

No, the bottom line is Israel. If Iran were to develop the bomb, Israel is screwed. Which is why we gave them the bomb in the first place. Make no mistake, it will be Israel that strikes first.

As for N. Korea, they want to be respected as a world power...they rattle their sabres and the US government and media treat it like the eve of armageddon.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, the bottom line is Israel. If Iran were to develop the bomb, Israel is screwed. Which is why we gave them the bomb in the first place. Make no mistake, it will be Israel that strikes first.

I mostly agree with the other things you said, and this here, recent events make me feel this is likely to be far more likely how it will occur if/when it does.

Originally posted by fini
wait banning nukes will mean that the US will have to do it too. and you very well know that they aint giving up their nukes. The UN could declare the dismantling of all nuclear weapon sites and whatever, but since when does the US listen to the UN?

Its impossible to ban nukes.


WE'RE the ones that need to give up our Nukes? What about China and Russia? China is itching to use their Nukes, but they're not stupid enough to strike first, if they come close to being defeated in a war, possibly the next World War, since they're a Communist Government and have nothing to lose, they would use them, we wouldn't. Russia's economy is in the crapper, they might end up doing a few Under-Handed deals, and the security for the silos is horrible too, people could steal them

The US and UK are the only countries that are capable of keeping a Nuclear Arsenal, and not using them unless neccesary, as well as keeping them safe

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
WE'RE the ones that need to give up our Nukes? What about China and Russia? China is itching to use their Nukes, but they're not stupid enough to strike first, if they come close to being defeated in a war, possibly the next World War, since they're a Communist Government and have nothing to lose, they would use them, we wouldn't. Russia's economy is in the crapper, they might end up doing a few Under-Handed deals, and the security for the silos is horrible too, people could steal them

The US and UK are the only countries that are capable of keeping a Nuclear Arsenal, and not using them unless neccesary, as well as keeping them safe The US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on populated areas.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
WE'RE the ones that need to give up our Nukes? What about China and Russia? China is itching to use their Nukes, but they're not stupid enough to strike first, if they come close to being defeated in a war, possibly the next World War, since they're a Communist Government and have nothing to lose, they would use them, we wouldn't. Russia's economy is in the crapper, they might end up doing a few Under-Handed deals, and the security for the silos is horrible too, people could steal them

China is communist in little more then name, and somehow I don't think in terms of real politic and so on that the argument "but their communist and when they loose the next war they'll probably use them" carries a lot of mileage. Fact is two nations with nuclear arsenals are just as unlikely to disarm or such as if there are fifty with them. It is the nature weaved into them. Deterrence and such. While the US has nukes no other nation is going to feel safe enough to pull the plug on their own programs. And as long as China and so on have nukes the US and west aren't going to feel safe enough to pull the plug either. Its a nasty stalemate that wont be broken without far more commitment from all concerned. From all nuclear powers.



Why? Who died and made them guardians of the nuclear doom? That kind of attitude is why other nations don't want to give up their bombs.

But realpolitik doesn't apply.. they're Commies... Commies!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But realpolitik doesn't apply.. they're Commies... Commies!

True, true. Still, one they day will realise realpolitik was a communist invention born in the fires of the politburo (even though it wasn't.)

For some reason politburo sounds delicious.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For some reason politburo sounds delicious.

Tis the Soviet version of the burito. Naturally it consists of a potato. And vodka. But then again all Russian dishes do.

Honestly the only people I am worried about having Nukes are the states that have extremist connections, not just extremist islam, but any extremists. Oh, and countries that don't have a stable govt. I wouldn't have a problem if Japan had nukes now. I wouldn't have a problem if South Africa had them. Heck, who cares if Fiji has them. No stable govt would initiate a nuclear war. The only ones who would do such a thing are those that are controlled, or might fall to, extremist elements.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You do realize that these two countries are rogue states run by homocidal maniacs?

yes, because the difference between homocidal maniacs and a virtuous nation is whether or not they would actually USE it...............oh wait a minute......

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
WE'RE the ones that need to give up our Nukes? What about China and Russia? China is itching to use their Nukes, but they're not stupid enough to strike first, if they come close to being defeated in a war, possibly the next World War, since they're a Communist Government and have nothing to lose, they would use them, we wouldn't. Russia's economy is in the crapper, they might end up doing a few Under-Handed deals, and the security for the silos is horrible too, people could steal them

The US and UK are the only countries that are capable of keeping a Nuclear Arsenal, and not using them unless neccesary, as well as keeping them safe
I'm sorry but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously after saying " The US and UK are the only countries that are capable of keeping a Nuclear Arsenal, and not using them unless neccesary, as well as keeping them safe."

Originally posted by docb77
Honestly the only people I am worried about having Nukes are the states that have extremist connections, not just extremist islam, but any extremists. Oh, and countries that don't have a stable govt. I wouldn't have a problem if Japan had nukes now. I wouldn't have a problem if South Africa had them. Heck, who cares if Fiji has them. No stable govt would initiate a nuclear war. The only ones who would do such a thing are those that are controlled, or might fall to, extremist elements.

So, by that logic how do you feel about nukes in the hands of say... Isreal? Or India (since the US is considering selling them nuclear material despite them not having ratified the relevant treaties)?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So, by that logic how do you feel about nukes in the hands of say... Isreal? Or India (since the US is considering selling them nuclear material despite them not having ratified the relevant treaties)?

In the case of Isreal - Last I checked their government was stable and without ties to terror organizations. India? I don't know much about the region. If they are anything like the stereotype I've got from Ghandi, sure why not. There are few people I'd trust more to have his finger over the nuclear trigger than someone who emulates Ghandi.