52 thoughts on “Blog #112 – Apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”

1. Kyle Coleman September 30, 2018 at 4:16 pm

   No former President Obama didn’t apologize for the bombings. He talked about how we as humans must never allow a tragedy like it to happen again but he didn’t really apologize for it happening in the first place. He might’ve seen it as a necessary evil in that situation and that’s why he said we can’t allow the circumstances for the bomb being dropped in the first place to happen again. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” This comment resonates with me the most because it’s true. Apologizing doesn’t in any way help the people that you’ve wronged. I’m not saying that we have to do something to help Japan but just apologizing for commiting a crime (which is not what I think the former President was doing) doesn’t really mean anything. And if you don’t introduce policies or something to help the people who you have done something worth apologizing too it means the apology is not sincere, that’s why I think Obama didn’t apologize. He saw it as a necessary evil. I agree with the fifth opinion more, a world with less nuclear bombs is a better world. Nuclear weapons should never have been invented in the first place, at some point you have to draw the line and say some weapons are too destructive to be around. The problem is humans don’t abide by that. We’ll take the moral high ground when there’s no conflict but when there is we try try to win the conflict by whatever means necessary our history shows it. I’m probably no exception but I firmly believe that there’s no place in this world for nuclear weapons.
2. Sophi Whitman October 1, 2018 at 4:21 pm

   In the speech given by Barack Obama, I believe that he is not apologizing. He describes that technological advances are necessary for making our country better however, we need to learn to use them in a civilized way. He thinks that sometimes our progress can blind us and cause us to make rash decisions. We need to come to our senses and understand the decisions we are making and made with these powerful tools. He gives his condolences to everybody killed from the bombing but, never apologizes or regrets the decision of dropping the bomb. Obama explains that both countries must look back into the past and understand the things they did that lead them to the bombing. He gestures the fact that it wasn’t completely America’s fault and that both countries need to make better decisions that won’t result in the same outcome.

   “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the acts comparable?” resonates with me the most. Pearl Harbor was a bombing of the U.S. Military bases in Hawaii in 1941 from Japan. The nuclear bombing from the United States was in Japan’s popular civilian cities in 1945. I think the two actions are extremely different even though they seem very similar. The Pearl Harbor bombing was in military bases while the bombing of Japan was in cities with civilians. However, Pearl Harbor did kill many civilians as well. Although we don’t completely know the ideas behind Pearl Harbor, we can assume that it was mainly about destroying U.S. weapons and naval bases as well as injuring soldiers. The bombing in Japan was specifically based around damaging Japan enough to make them surrender. We killed thousands of Japanese just because we wanted to save our men from fighting another battle. I think that we shouldn’t compare the two behaviors meaning that the apologies shouldn’t be based on one another. Japan not apologizing should have no effect on our decision whether or not to apologize. We need to be accountable for our own actions and not depend on Japan for an apology.

   The second opinion from New York times best fits my own views. This expresses that Obama should show grief about the results from the bombs without a formal apology. I think that we need to let Japan know that we are very sorry for all of the destruction that the bombs caused but not apologize for them. Truman was doing his job in protecting the United States and sadly the option he chose was killing thousands of people in Japan. Both countries made bad decisions in WW2 and lead us to the devastating bombings at the end of the world. I don’t believe the blame should be solely focused on the U.S. as Japan did many things that caused us to drop the bombs. Giving our condolences is the respectable thing to do in place of an apology.
3. Kaitlin Capinjola October 1, 2018 at 7:55 pm

   In my opinion, I believe that Barack Obama did apologize for the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his speech, Obama mixed in his “apology” fluidly so that it wouldn’t stand out and cause controversy or backlash. He didn’t state openly that he was sorry for the atomic bombs which I think is justifiable considering he wasn’t the one responsible for the decision that took place. Instead of bluntly apologizing for the devastating events that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he took it in a different direction. Obama stated that words could not simply make up for the damage and suffering that occurred in Japan. As well as stating that merely his words could not compensate for those effected in the bombings, he also voiced his opinion by saying the United States has the duty to make different choices in the future to make up for what we did in the past.

   2. The comment that resonates with me the most is “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor but are the two acts comparable?”. It never really occurred to me that Japan hasn’t been as ridiculed for Pearl Harbor as the United States has for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unites states has been exceedingly more pressured to apologize for dropping atomic bombs when Japan essentially did the same thing. I believe the atomic bombs were beneficial for the United States because the other alternative to dropping the bombs was to invade Japan, which would have killed an estimated hundreds of thousands American soldiers. Although the atomic bombs killed Japanese civilians as well as solders, its viewed as such an unimaginable action because of this, when in reality Japan did the same to us. I think because Pearl Harbor didn’t involve civilians it’s not as comparable to the bombing of Japan. I think Japan still has something to apologize for, Pearl Harbor just wasn’t as extreme as the atomic bombings so they essentially, “get away” with not taking responsibility for their actions.

   3. The opinion from the New York Times article that best fits my own views on the issue is the statement that dropping the bomb was the right decision to make because it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives by the avoidance of an invasion of Japan. I agree with this claim because although the dropping of the atomic bombs killed Japanese citizens along with soldiers, that was just a “side effect” of the bombings, they were never meant to kill innocent civilians, just scare the Japanese into surrendering. The United States was solely focused on protecting their own, which I think is justifiable because it avoided many American casualties. I believe that the United States was trying to end the war and save American lives, and the killing of Japanese citizens was a risk they were willing to take in order to protect their own. But, the United States was also trying to find the fastest solution to ending the war to save as many lives (American and Japanese) as possible. I also believe that its justifiable to argue that Japan could have prevented the second bombing if they had surrendered in the first place.
4. Ethan Lulkin October 1, 2018 at 9:05 pm

   I think Barack Obama did not apologize for the atomic bombings. I think he admitted dropping the atomic bomb was a bad thing, but he never apologized. He said, “Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” I what Obama is trying to say is that instead of apologizing, it would be better to look at history and examine the flaws and suffering involved, and then we can see how to change it. In the “things to think about” section, the comment that resonates with me most is, “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?”. This resonates with me because I thought Japan had apologized for Pearl Harbor. Yes, Japan could argue that we should not apologize for our past in wars but look how to change it, like Obama. But the reasons for dropping the atomic bombs and Pearl Harbor were very different. Pearl Harbor started a war and was surprise attack. Before dropping the atomic bombs, America threaten Japan with an ultimatum and told them that prompt and utter destruction would come if they did not surrender. Japan did not listen and the atomic bombs were dropped to end a war. But on the other hand the atomic bombs killed up to 230,000 people when Pearl Harbor only killed 2,403 people. I would say that the two events are comparable, but Japan should’ve apologized. The third opinion that said the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan,” best fits my views. Obama didn’t apologize and shouldn’t have. It was an act of the past that helped stop a war. There may have been a different way to do it but it ended the war. Now America, Japan, and the rest of the world can look back on how to act differently so it won’t happen again.
5. Kenny Pepper October 1, 2018 at 9:24 pm

   In President Obama’s speech, he is not necessarily apologizing for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, but he is saying that we can use the catastrophic day as an experience learning from. President Obama never once says the word “sorry” in his speech when addressing the bombings, but strafes around a formal apology by speaking on how terrible the effects of the bombings were and how we must “…look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” President Obama also talks about how technological advances without the understanding of there power can be disastrous. All in all, President Obama gives no formal apology to the Japanese, but does acknowledge the suffering that the bombs put the Japanese through.
   Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population?
   This comment resonates with me the most because of what things have gone on after World War II involving nukes. America is the only nation in the world to use nukes not only once, but twice, placing us in a class of our own. Thinking about other nuclear conflicts that have occurred in history include the Cold War, the Iran nuclear deal, as well as what is going on today with North Korea. What all three of these events have in common is the total involvement of the United States, whether we were trying to denuclearize, or prepare for a nuclear attack. The United States are always a headlining country when Nukes are in the discussion, so I think we do have the moral obligation to be a leader when it comes to the nuclear weapons. As President Obama said, everyone can learn from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but the United States has “Since that fateful day…made choices that give us hope.” America is playing that head honcho role when it comes to nuclear weapons today, which I think we will and should continue to do.
   I agree with the fifth opinion that there should be no nuclear weapons. Nukes put too much power in the hands of one individual and should have no place in the world. The amount of devastation that can be brought upon people by a nuclear bomb is a scary thought that no one should have to worry about. The suffering the Japanese faced when we nuked them is unparalleled to any other attack suffered by another country in history, and no one should ever have to suffer like that again. Nukes pose a threat and create controversy/conflict between people or nations that is unnecessary, and the world is better off without them.
6. Evan Willey October 1, 2018 at 9:32 pm

   I do not think president Obama apologized for dropping the atomic bombs. He does acknowledge that this was a terrible event. Many civilians died during the bombings and it was a very sad and troubling time. I think that in the speech he is saying that Hiroshima is a learning moment. A moment that teaches us on why we should never use these bombs on other nations and the raw power they contain. He’s trying to show that moments like these gives us motivation to strive for greater peace between nations. As nations become more and more interdependent we need to look for peaceful cooperation instead of violence and conflict. I think the message of the speech is that war is hated most of all. The things it makes us do and the wrong actions we take based on fear, Obama does think the the bombs were the wrong choice but these conflicts and hatred make individuals think and act differently than how they truly are. He stresses that the thing we must remember is that all life is precious, all life has worth and all humans are family. He wants the wonderful advancements of science to improve life, not focus on wiping it out. America strives that uphold that fact that every individual has certain rights, it is often times hard for our country to live up to that standard. The important part is that we attempt to and make an effort. These are the first steps we now need to take with other countries to ensure peace and avoid repeats of what occured in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
   The comment “Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population” resonates with me. I think that we do need to lead the way with nuclear weapons. I think we need to acknowledge that our atomic bombing was a mistake and show other countries the negative impact these bombs had. We need to teach other countries the threat that these bombs hold to mankind and search out peace with other countries that have nuclear weapons.
   I think the opinion that suggested that Obama should “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” I don’t think a full apology is necessary for the bombs. I think that in war all nations are acting with unneeded aggression. I think that put in the same case Japan would’ve dropped bombs on us if the scenario was flipped. I do think that it’s important that we stress that the bombs were a bad idea. I think Obama did a good job at explaining the importance in trying to find peace with the now looming threat of nuclear warfare.
7. Halle misra October 2, 2018 at 4:08 pm

   In the speech, I don’t think President Obama apologized for dropping the atomic bomb. He did mention how it was terrible, but I believe he thought it was a necessary evil. Obama understands that it was a horrific thing that happened in our nation’s history, but he knows it had to be done. Obama didn’t apologize partly because ever since the beginning of mankind, humans have fought. Our early ancestors created multiple weapons. Although the atomic bomb killed many people, Obama explains how it also created technological and social advancements. Through the death of people, new medical and technological advancements occurred. He knows that if there is a next time they must do something different.
   Japan has not apologized to America for pearl harbor, so we shouldn’t apologize for the atomic bomb. The death toll for Pearl Harbor was only 2,403 compared to 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki. Although the death toll isn’t even comparable, when Japan started Pearl Harbor, they knew what they were getting themselves into. When American dropped the atomic bomb they were trying to end the conflict that Japan started. Japan wanted to start a war and America wanted to end it. If America did not drop the atomic bomb, then more Americans would have died. This was necessary to end the war without any more bloody deaths.
   The second opinion from the New York Times article resonates most with me because I think the atomic bomb was necessary but was still a very devastating event. We had to drop the atomic bomb because without it we would have gone to war and ended up killing many Americans and possibly even more Japanese people then the atomic bomb did. I resonate with the second one because I think that everyone needs to start looking at the bigger picture. We are just one little planet in a giant galaxy. People need to start looking at the human race as one whole instead of little countries. A large death toll to one country should be a large death toll to the whole world. We should be able to say we’re sorry for killing innocent people. Our intentions might have been in the right place, and it might have been for the best, but it’s not okay to kill innocent people and for that, we should apologize. Although the death rate was high, I don’t think we should apologize for anything else. America did what it thought necessary to stop a war and it worked. In the grand scheme of things, the atomic bomb was just a blur in the history of the world. We should just let it go and put it in the past and forgive our actions.
8. Chris Thorsen October 2, 2018 at 5:26 pm

   I believe that Obama apologized, if indirectly, to Japan. Throughout his speech, Obama talks about the atrocities of the bomb and war in general. This almost appears as if he is apologizing for his former Americans. He consistently mentions that this bomb was a point in history where we can learn from our mistakes, so as not to repeat them. He also talks about how he believes that atomic bombs should be abolished, and that science should progress towards helping humanity, not destroying it. Most of this combined seems to form an apology, in that he is saying that all of this technology is, and was always wrong. The comment that resonates with me is the one asking if we have an obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons due to us being the first creators, and the only ones to ever use one. I think that, yes, we do need to lead in matters involving nuclear weapons. We have seen the direct effects of a nuclear weapon, not just in tests but on a legitimate city. We have also felt the moral consequences since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have had more than 70 years to see the effects the bomb has had on not only the city but also the people and their country. We have had all of this time to contemplate the devastating consequences of such a weapon that has only grown stronger, so we should be the ones to lead in atomic decisions. The opinion I agree with the most was the opinion that “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’”. An apology could show the world that we are becoming a more peaceful nation, and others may follow our lead. It may also further our bond with the Japanese, which is good for both countries.
9. Annika Paluda October 2, 2018 at 5:34 pm

   Throughout Obama’s speech, he touches on the tragedy of the people lost in Hiroshima that August in 1945. I don’t believe that Obama apologized for the atomic bombings, but rather acknowledged them as bad ways to end a war. He used his speech to remind the present world of how terrible violence affects ordinary people’s lives in terrible ways. I think by bringing up the grievances from the past, he hoped to prevent them from ever happening again in a future war. I believe the reason why Obama did not apologize is because he believes he cannot speak for the United States and its decisions in the past.
   The fact that Justin Trudeau apologized for how native Canadians were treated in the past resonates with me the most. He is right; an apology costs nothing, has no effect on policy, and it is the nice thing to do. If the United States were to apologize to Japan for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think our current relationship with Japan would be strengthened and maybe spark incentive for Japan to apologize to us for events like Pearl Harbor. By forgiving each other, the events of the past will in no way be changed. But perhaps it would create peace between two nations who have a history of bad blood.
   My views best coincide with the second opinion: Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” I believe that is exactly what he did, that day in Hiroshima. Obama managed to recognize how atomic warfare caused many people to suffer, without literally apologizing for the attack. As much as I think an apology would do no harm, Obama definitely took a step in the right direction. Hopefully one day, leaders of other nations follow Obama’s lead in acknowledging mistakes made in the past. That way, we could create a safer, more peaceful world to live in.
10. Tucker Budd October 2, 2018 at 5:44 pm

    1)No, President Barack Obama did not apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During his speech though he does commemorate those that have been lost. He commemorates the 100 thousand Japanese men, women and children, along with Koreans and dozens of American soldiers that were jailed who died in the bombings. He does not apologize but states that the U.S and Japan have not only a close alliance but a friendship that has won more than any war can. President Obama did not see it necessary to apologize but more necessary to talk about what Japan and the U.S have gained or loss from that tragic moment.

    2) The question that resonated with me the most was, Would an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing? I believe that there are two sides or answers so called to this question. I see it as a yes. I believe that if a president was willing to apologize to the Japanese for Hiroshima without them apologizing for Pearl Harbor that they might ask for reparations. The might ask for the money it cost them to build the city, back. They might ask for military support, like planes which would be ironic or naval support such as boats. On the other hand thought they might just accept our apology and then apologize for Pearl Harbor. Likewise they may not accept our apology and never forgive us for the horrific tragedy that happened on August 6, 1945.

    3) Opinion number 2 fits my best views on the topic. The opinion says, “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” This fits my best views because this is what I would have done and what President Obama did. President Obama could have apologized, but he chose not to. Instead he chose to give respects to the many that were loss. I believe that was the best option. Instead of defending America I would have explained how it is set in history and that nothing can change what had happened but it is to late for an apology. If America was going to apologize they would have done it years ago. There is no need for an apology now. All we can do today is mourn those that we lost and hope it never has to come to the situation of bombing a city full of civilians, ever again.
11. Roni Blank October 2, 2018 at 6:14 pm

    In 2016, President Obama went to Hiroshima and gave a speech to the Japanese people. Obama talked about the catastrophe of the first atomic bomb, which was thrown by the United States on the Japanese city, Hiroshima, in an effort to end WWII. The use of the atomic bomb has always produced very provocative debates. On one hand, the United States used the atomic bomb as a last resort after Japan didn’t surrender. Also, assumptions about the statistics reveal that the bombs actually saved lives by avoiding a military invasion of Japan. On the other hand, even though the dropping of the atomic bombs may have been the logical thing to do, it was extremely unethical and lacking moral.

    I think that by being the first US president to visit Hiroshima, Obama demonstrates his feelings of guilt and compassion. However, I don’t think that he has the right (or that he wants to) apologize in the name of the American nation. Truman, the American President at that time, did the best he could to come up with the best solution he could. Every major decision comes with implications, but we can’t judge harshly the leaders without completely knowing what they’ve been through.

    The comment that resonates with me the most is: “Would an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing?”. It’s intriguing for me to know whether Japan understands that the US didn’t throw the atomic bombs as a matter of “can”, but as a matter of “must”. Do the Japanese understand that Japan of the past is not Japan of today and that Japan’s values of resistance and pride are not around today as intensely? If the US will officially apologize for the bombs, will they too, or will they still see the US as a nation that has done them grief unjustly?

    I agree with the first opinion of The New York Times, which stated that ”an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.” Although I don’t believe the US used the bombs with evil intentions, it was unethical, devastating, and cruel. Some even believe that it’s better ending the war with more deaths and casualties than to end it in such a brutal way. Such attacks are not desirable in today’s world, and because of that, even if the attack was justified at the time, we should overlook pride and together make a world where we learn from our mistakes and where such things will never happen again.
12. Ryan Goodman October 2, 2018 at 6:21 pm

    Obama clearly doesn’t apologize during his speech in Hiroshima. He doesn’t even say “America dropped the bomb.” He instead says that the death and destruction was a tragedy. He acknowledges the horrible cost dropping the bomb had, but never Americas hand in dropping it. I don’t think this is a denial of guilt as much as its a diplomatic move. It could be detrimental to Obamas presidency if he publicly apologized for dropping the bomb. In the already harsh political climate during his presidency, it would be very difficult to recover from an apology like this. Instead of blatantly apologizing, Obama attempts to use the incident as a learning moment. He says that the bombing of Hiroshima shows us why we must always strive for peace, especially in a world of nuclear firepower.

    The idea that “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two comparable.” speaks to me the most.
    Neither America nor Japan have apologized for acts of war against each other, and comparing the different attacks shouldn’t be the determinate in what country apologizes. Both countries attacked the other on their home turf, and both led to many casualties. Although the atomic bomb overall had a larger impact, both countries have something they could apologize for. I think that neither do because during this time of turmoil and war, both countries did what they thought was necessary, no matter the costs. In the present, these decisions made by previous generations are better left out of the picture, so our governments can make good decisions without being encumbered by past mistakes.

    The ideas in opinion 2 best align with my own. Opinion 2 believes that the Obama was right in showing remorse for the millions of deaths, and agreed that he shouldn’t make a formal apology. Obama was facing a polarized country where his every move was scrutinized. Knowing this, he made the smart decision to not apologize for dropping the bombs, which benefitted his own political career, while also preventing an uproar from citizens. I think he was also right in not apologizing for dropping the bomb because it was the best option Truman had. If he didn’t drop the bomb, thousands of U.S. soldiers would have died in an invasion, and for a president whose job is to help his country, he made the right choice and decided to save American lives.
13. Jake Chernow October 2, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    Like almost every other political issue in our country, President Obama was likely feeling pressure from both sides regarding whether or not he should apologize for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. In an effort to appease both sides, Obama’s speech fell somewhere right in the middle. Although Obama, (perhaps strategically), never used the words,” sorry “or “apologize” in his speech, he clearly addressed multiple regrets and urged humanity to learn lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that the suffering was not in vain.
    Conservatives and many leaders argue that apologizing makes America seem weak and they stress that to refuse to apologize is a way to show national strength. Contrary to that opinion, apologies are powerful and actually, it is usually the stronger person who knows how to apologize. If we can’t apologize for dropping atomic bombs and killing thousands of innocent people, what can we apologize for? Sure, we were at war. Of course, we were not the only ones who killed and caused suffering. Perhaps the bomb was even necessary to end the war. Nonetheless, who doesn’t regret that thousands of innocent people died from the bomb that we chose to drop? Who doesn’t regret the fact that the war happened at all? As a nation and as humans we have collective guilt for our actions in the war that we should acknowledge and take accountability for…and what’s so bad about apologizing?
    My own views on the issue of an apology for the atomic bombs does not fit exactly with any of the five opinions. It is closest, however, with the person who suggested that “an apology would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.” I feel strongly that dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because it ended the war. I also regret the thousands that were killed by the decision to do so. For that reason, I strongly feel that we can and should apologize and that our apology will show our strength as a nation to be self-reflective and accountable for our part in the destruction and deaths in WW2. The argument that “I don’t think we were wrong so we shouldn’t apologize” seems narrow-minded and immature. An intelligent, forward-thinking, and strong nation can accept responsibility for their actions and admit that they regret the lives lost. Like the opinion stated in the NYT article, this would set a precedent and tone of reconciliation that all nations can aspire to and respond to.
14. Evan mondora October 2, 2018 at 7:10 pm

    I do not believe that former president Barak Obama apologized for the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his speech however he did recognize that it is bad that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horribly suffering when he says “mere words cannot give voice to such suffering as at Hiroshima.” And then acknowledges how the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an okay thing when he says “how easily we can learn to justify violence in the name of a higher cause”. To end his speech he says “But we have a shared responsibility to look into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again”, by saying this President Barack Obama meant is we must look at our past and make sure the horrible things like such as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happen again. If President Barack Obama were to apologize for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki He would have been more direct about saying it.
    “It seems that liberals want to be transparent, self-critical, and ask “are we living up to our values?” Conservatives stress national strength and unity, they want to instill pride, and remember the great things that we have done as a country.” This resonates with me the most because I am a little bit more conservative than liberal, and think that we should instill national pride and remember the great things we have done as a country, But however I do believe that we should be more transparent and self critical and look for problems in our country and fix them. When a car starts to have problems you fix them because if you don’t it will eventually breakdown, a similar thing would happen to the United States if we did not fix our problems.
    I think that the second article best displays my views I do think. I do believe that the president should give some form of an apology to the Japanese people for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However I do believe that at the time it was certainly the correct thing to do because a full invasion of mainland Japan would have had much more casualties for both sides.
15. Hannah Deighan October 2, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    President Barack Obama isn’t flat out saying “I’m sorry that our country bombed Hiroshima”, but he is recognizing it as an “unproud” moment of America and encouraging that we avoid doing anything like it in the future. He addresses the fact that countries need to grow technologically, however we need to make careful decisions about how we use these technological advances. He recognizes all the innocent lives lost, but he never apologizes or denies agreeing with the decision to drop the bomb.

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” I partially agree with this statement. An apology is a nice thing to do if you really mean it, however it doesn’t change what has already happened. I think what Obama is saying is that yes, dropping the bomb killed so many innocent people, but the past is that past, and we can’t change what has already happened, only learn from our mistakes so it doesn’t happen again.

    I don’t completely agree with any of the statements quoted from the New York Times. The first person said “An apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to”. It would show that we were sorry for dropping the bomb, and yes the nations could respond, but I’m not sure if all of the responses would be positive. I feel like that statement is too broad. One person said we could show our expression of grief or sorrow without apologizing. Obama’s speech did show our sorrow for the casualties from dropping the bomb, but it didn’t imply that he regretted it or thought it was the wrong decision. A third person said that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” I completely disagree with this statement. I do not thing that bombing would have saved lives, because the Japanese military was so weak. In the portrait book, they predicted Japan would have surrendered by November had we not dropped the bomb.
16. Elle Layman October 2, 2018 at 7:38 pm

    Over the past 80 years of history, an event that sticks out like no other is the dropping of the atomic bomb. Since that day in history, no other atomic bomb has been dropped and many people think it should never be dropped again. The question “should we have dropped the bomb?” lingers on minds constantly. A comment that stuck out to me about the bomb was, “Americans have been worshipping our war heroes, but the nuclear bombs makes it seem like they might have done something wrong”. In regards to this comment, I could not disagree more. Our war heroes fought and gave up their lives when they didn’t even choose to fight. Also, the veterans did not choose what to do, they simply carry out the choices made by people higher in the system and therefore deemed more important. These soldiers fought for the people of America so we can live the lives we live and they deserve our respect and the title “heroes”. In Barack Obamas speech in 2016 during his visit to Hiroshima, he said the actions were wrong and more harmful than they had to be. He claimed these actions were to never happen again, claiming a loss to the other country is equal to a loss for us. However, in the deep sorrow he expressed, he seemed to look forward instead of looking back and apologizing. There are many opinions about apologizing for the atomic bomb. The opinion I personally agree with the most is the claim that “the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” Our first effort should be to bring our troops home safely. Our second effort should be to keep America strong and convey what happens when you mess with us. The atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and showed the destruction America can cause. The atomic bomb is an immense part of our history. Although the decision to drop the bomb is talked about very commonly, the deed has been done and we cannot take it back. Moreover and agreeing with George Bush, we should never apologize for the United States, no matter what the facts are”
17. Kate Potocsky October 2, 2018 at 7:41 pm

    I do not think that Obama apologized for the atomic bombings. He did nothing more than express sorrow for the victims and the notion of striving to be better. Obama talked about how our own civilization has the means to doom itself. He wants to use science for good rather than evil. He mentions many substantial things science has been used for including cross-sea communication and curing diseases, and how great discoveries often blind people from malice. He made sure to acknowledge and encourage the remembrance of the innocent lives lost during the tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With these tragedies came a moral revolution. We knew that we must change. Without dishonoring the people who lost their lives, he mentioned one of the positives in this tragic situation. He said that it allowed us to change: to be better, to rethink our morals, and to adjust our outlook on war. In the end, there was no apology. What there was was a reaffirmation that America will be better, and we will never forget the innocent lives lost.
    The thing to think about that resonates with me the most states that, “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology ‘doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.’” I agree with Trudeau. I think an apology for the nuclear bombings is morally correct. Yes, we all know that the bombings were terrible tragedies. We all know that they killed thousands of civilians. We all know that America is getting better. What we don’t know is if America is truly sorry for its actions. I believe that an apology is necessary. While it won’t change anything, it would provide a sense of closure to many people. In the scheme of things, what seems like so long ago truly was not. Whether the bombings were justified or not, peoples’ parents and grandparents and brothers and sisters were lost. Their families deserve an apology. They deserve to hear that we are genuinely sorry for the agony we caused them.
    The opinion from the New York Times article that best fits my views on this issue says, “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” I very much agree with this person’s opinion. I think that apologizing is the right thing to do. It would set an even greater precedent for the future. While the apology probably would’ve been controversial, it’s what the innocent people who were killed deserve. I think other nations would have learned from an apology. It would have shown that nuclear warfare is not the answer, wdo not need to destroy the world, and we can use our resources for good.
18. Lily October 2, 2018 at 8:06 pm

    Yes, I believe President Obama did apologize for the atomic bombings in a way. He expressed his condolences for victims of the bombing, but also,expressed his understanding that the people who died on that unfortunate day were people just like us. He explains that while scientific advances allow us to communicate across seas, cure disease and create new things, it also brings, war, weapons of mass destruction, killing machines. Without fault we will never learn. While the bomb was a devastation, it is now forever a part of history. Obama mentions the strong bond we now have with Japan, and how it was gained over time with forgiveness and acceptance in mind.

    The question that made me think the most was “It seems that liberals want to be transparent, self-critical, and ask “are we living up to our values?” Conservatives stress national strength and unity, they want to instill pride, and remember the great things that we have done as a country.” I believe that while its important to have a sense of nationalism for our country and look at all of our accomplishments in a positive light, I think it’s just as important to look at the things we have done wrong as a nation. We would never succeed without trial and error, while some mistakes can be shameful and hard to talk about, we must recognize these events so that we can move forward and not repeat our mistakes. This is exactly what President Obama talks about in his speech.

    I completely agree with the opinion that Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” because I believe that is exactly what he did. He showed his respect and empathy for the devastation that occurred in Hiroshima. He did not have to apologize or ask for forgiveness to get his message across. He spoke respectfully and acknowledged the suffering of japan with empathy.
19. Adam Rhen October 2, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    I do think Barack Obama is apologizing for dropping the atomic bomb in his speech. He speaks of the event in a remorseful way and talks about the horrificness of the bomb. He says how not only America, but the world was not ready for the advancement of nuclear weaponry. He in a way was saying because the social invitation was decades behind, we were reckless and power hungry. Obama also says how we need to use the bomb as a learning tool of what wars worst can bring. He then goes on and talks about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. He sees the destruction that can be cased, and wants it to never happen again. By declaring all this he tells Japan that we are truly sorry for what we did, and we want to work towards having never happen again.
    The question the resonated with me the most is, “ Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” This question resonates with me the most because i don’t see how this can even be asked. Comparing the two events is like comparing apples to oranges. The pearl Harbor bombing was on a military base with only 2,400 casualties. This was just another attack, like many other bombings that happened in the war. While Hiroshima was more of an act of terrorism. 180,000 people died from the nuclear bomb, and ten of thousands were affected by radiation with effects lasting still today. Hiroshima was just a city with innocent civilians that was simply picked because it was nice out that day. Japan doesn’t have to apologise for Pearl Harbor because that was simply what war is, but the nuclear bombing was not a war action, but an act of hate by a power hungry country.
    I agree with the fifth person most in the New York Times article. Obama should have talked about the actual effort he is putting in to denuclearizing the U.S. to show Japan we are truly making an effort to not have the past happen again. A veto on a trillion dollar plan is a huge decision and shows the work Obama is doing. Apologizing is one thing, but actually working towards denuclearization speaks way louder.
20. Dominick Stoops October 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm

    I think that Obama apologized in an informal way. Though he never addressed a formal apology saying “I’m sorry” he did talk about a few other topics relating to the bombings on Japan. He talks about how the people who were victims of the atomic bombs were just normal civilians. He goes on to say how they were just like us, how we are all like each other, that we all live, we all enjoy the smile of our loved ones. He talks about how a hibakusha woman forgave a pilot who dropped one of the bombs, she didn’t hate him, she hated war itself that lead us to this point. I feel like when Obama was speaking these words they were a not ‘direct’ apology, but instead an apology wrapped up in layers of speaking and writing. That was just a portion of the speech. Obama speaks about how that humans shouldn’t fight each other. But we created the first weapons, of spears and blades, and these weapons were used to kill our own. He brings this to focus by putting it side by side with nuclear warfare. He talks about how getting rid of nuclear weapons wouldn’t just fix all of our issues. Yes, if nuclear warfare were to be gone it wouldn’t be as damageful but plenty of weapons can still make damage like this and that nuclear warfare isn’t the problem, that it’s just apart of the problem. He talks about how the idea of war and the aggression we have for each other as a species is a problem, that we should all realize and see that we need to stop using this kind of science to kill but instead help humanity grow and learn. In the last sentence in the speech Obama sums it up and says that the dropping of the bombs shouldn’t be the start of an age of warfare, but of our own moral awakening. Which I think this is an all together informal apology to Japan, saying that it was a mistake without actually saying those words, but it still shows our remorse.
    The points made in the “things to think about” section that resonated most with me was the point about Canada and the Native Canadians. The Prime Minister of Canada says “how an apology doesn’t cost anything it has no effect on policy, it was just the nice thing to do.” This resonates with me most because I feel like apologizing is just the better thing to do. I don’t like holding grudges and I think the longer you hold grudges the harder it is to apologize. If we all just apologize we can all continue to learn and grow from each other without a toxic environment to prevent us from doing so.
    The first point made was talking about how an apology from the president would set an reconciliation that all nations could follow. This fits best with my own views on the issue because I believe apologizing for something would help us all grow. If the president were to have formally apologized and said it in a good manner then it would set a bar to all other nations. We could possibly all begin to apologize for the terrible things our nations have done, and apologizing is way easier than holding a grudge and pretending you were right. Like the Prime minister of Canada said, and apology doesn’t cost anything. So it would be great to have made a good apology.
21. Zoe Kissinger October 2, 2018 at 8:22 pm

    I do not feel that President Obama is apologizing on behalf of the United States for the atomic bomb dropping in Japan. I do believe, however, that he is acknowledging that the dropping was a terrible tragedy. He reflects on the lives that were gone in an instant, and how the event brought great suffering to the people who did end up surviving. With an encouraging, yet solemn, tone, he states that we should never have to resort to that kind of solution in the event of a conflict ever again, for we have seen the consequences, and they are immense.

    I feel that an apology would not have to be made in order for the door to be opened up to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing. First of all, the dropping of the bombs was not unprovoked, and my dad brought up an interesting point when he said, “They dropped the first bombs at Pearl Harbor, we just happened to drop bigger ones.” So it’s not as if we attacked Japan out of the blue. Secondly, in my Japanese language class, we had a brief discussion on Japan’s perspective of World War II. In said discussion, Mrs. Cooper, who came from Japan and was taught this in school as well, brought up how the Japanese people do not hold a grudge against America specifically for the dropping of the atomic bombs, but instead have a hatred for the war itself. Honestly, hearing this changed my perspective of the whole situation, and I wish many people would consider having this same mindset.

    I think that the opinion from the New York Times that best matches my own would be the fifth one in which it is suggested that President Obama should announce the veto to improve our nuclear arsenal with a budget of $1 trillion. I feel that mentioning such a thing to Japan would show that America is ready to make a change and is already making its way along the path to a more peaceful future. This would be a future of little suffering and no drastic losses of lives would occur. The people of Japan may like to hear that because they will be relieved to know that America is already making a positive change.
22. Sarah Johns October 2, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    In Obama’s speech from Hiroshima he never apologized for dropping the atomic bombs at the end of WWII. He talked instead about how it was a cruel action that we need to learn from but never forget. He mentioned several times that he was there to remember those innocent people lost on August 6, 1945. Also, how people have justified violence by saying it is part of a bigger cause. He does however allude to the fact that the bombs shouldn’t have been dropped at the time. He believes that every time there is a scientific progression we need to progress as people. He also talks about how we should never let conflicts get so far, so that we don’t have to have another tragic event similar to this one. The statement that resonates with me the most is “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” I don’t think that these two acts are comparable even though they are the same on the surface. In both situations bombs were dropped but for two different reasons. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to try to get an advantage over us before before we joined the war. We were keeping many war materials at the naval base, so that is what they targeted. Even though this still doesn’t justify their actions, they didn’t target innocent people. When we bombed Japan we bombed one of their most populated cities. Our goal was to damage Japan so much so that they would surrender. We decided to bomb instead of invade because it would save american lives. Japan didn’t think about saving lives, they just wanted to destroy as much of our supplies as they could. The second opinion, Obama should show his grief without apologizing, fits my personal views about this situation. I believe that if he apologizes it is not doing anything. Saying that he apologizes for our actions doesn’t bring back the thousands of people who died from the bomb. I feel that if he were to show his regret in a different way it would mean more to Japan and maybe start to“patch things up.” This doesn’t bring back the dead either but it does show more empathy than just apologizing.
23. Nathalie Morgan October 2, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    1.) I believe that President Obama was not apologizing for our actions at Hiroshima. I believe this because Obama was trying to explain that in order for us to become greater nations together, we need to learn and adapt from the mistakes of Hiroshima. This can be supported by an excerpt of the speech in which he says “But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” which tells us that the President did not believe we were the only ones to blame for Hiroshima; it was also partly Japan’s.
    2.) The comment that resonates with me the most is the 5th one, which states “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” This comment is really interesting to me, because its a question I find myself wondering when the class discusses the dropping of the nuclear bombs. The nuclear bombs, to me, were much different from the attack on Pearl Harbor, because the bombs were dropped in highly populated cities, and killed thousands of civilians; where as Pearl Harbor was a military base, and didn’t permanently scar the earth. In Hiroshima, the earth and people in that area were victims of radiation poisoning from the atomic weapon.
    3.) The opinion that was most similar with mine from the New York Times was opinion number one, which says “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” I agree with this because if the United States apologized, then we could begin to start building better relationships with countries that could follow our lead, and be able to talk things out with countries we are feuding with today. If we could take responsibility for our actions, then maybe the U.S. can begin to move forward.
24. Veronica Szuma October 2, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    1. President Obama does not apologize for the atomic bombings. He instead says that we need to remember the people that were affected by the bombs, and how their lives were forever changed. He later calls for change, “We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun.” He states that it is important to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, and he also urges countries to one day eliminate their nuclear weapon stockpiles. Although he mourns the deaths of people hit with the bomb, and does not want any other incident to occur from nuclear warfare, Obama does not say he is sorry for America’s past decisions.
    2. Although it is nice that Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for the treatment of Native Canadians, I agree with the statement, “An apology doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy.” The saying, “actions speak louder than words” applies perfectly here. An apology can be a first step toward change, but if there is no follow-up action of fixing the mistake worth apologizing for, then it means nothing. In Obama’s case, he is taking the next step after an apology, which is creating a plan of action. He calls the countries who have nuclear weapons to decrease the amounts, and eventually get rid of them. He suggests a peaceful way of settling disputes, instead of warfare, which cause the tragedies in Japan. If Trudeau had taken his apology to the next step, it would have meant a lot more.
    3. My views on the bombings best fit with the fifth opinion that claimed, “since Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for advocating the reduction of nuclear weapons, he should announce his veto of a previously approved plan to spend $1 trillion on improving our nuclear arsenal.” If Obama is going to call for a decrease in nuclear weapons, not only for his own country, but for the world, then he needs to make sure that it is pursued. By not vetoing a plan to improve nuclear arsenal, he is disregarding his own desire for change. If someone wants to ensure that another Hiroshima or Nagasaki never happens again, then they need to plan and act accordingly.
25. Hayden Miller October 2, 2018 at 8:40 pm

    I do not think Barack Obama apologized for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He did not apologize for America’s past actions, but returned to speak about that day and how it is a moral question to ever use nuclear weapons capable of power like the bombs again. I think that in Obama’s speech, he addresses the tragedies of war and how sometimes measures like the atomic bomb must be used. I think that this quote given by Obama was a perfect backup for his whole speech when he said, “We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.” He is restating that war is sometimes unavoidable and that these mistakes can be forgiven.
    The comment that resonates with me most is “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are.” which was said by George H.W Bush. This comment resonates with me because although America has done some pretty bad things, so has every other country. There is no reason to apologize for something that has happened years ago under a different leader. Barack Obama was not even alive during the bombing of Hiroshima, so he should not apologize for something he was not even around for. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but it was in some eyes an act of mercy and a way to end the war.
    The Idea that best fits my own opinion is the fifth opinion because I agree that the reduction of nuclear weapons would prevent many harmful things, such as tension between countries, another arms race, and possibly war on a large scale. The reduction of these weapons would also help the environment, as nuclear power and weaponry is a contributing factor to global warming. I believe that the world would be safer with less nuclear weapons around.
26. Faith Reeves October 2, 2018 at 8:44 pm

    In President Obama’s speech about the victims, which he gave directly in Hiroshima, he never formally apologized. He did condemn it, however. President Obama talked about how the city and its victims have moved on, and that those whose lives were lost should be honored and celebrated. There was never a time when he clearly stated that America was sorry for what they did. The questions section of this blog discussed the different ideas of Liberals and Conservatives regarding this matter. From what was written, my interpretation is that Liberals may want to face what this country did, while Conservatives would prefer to refrain from mentioning it. I personally believe that while it is important to the unity of a country to have patriotism, and know the good things that have happened, it is equally important to know the negatives of what this country has done. For that reason, I feel that the more liberal view point in this matter makes sense to me. I think America is a very powerful country, and have paved the way in many forms, but it is a necessity to also acknowledge that there have been acts that were truly evil. I recognize the fact that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and I agree that this too was an immoral and horrific act. However, that does not by any means negate the act that the United States committed. I agree with the New York Times opinion that said the apology ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’ If Obama had apologized for the atrocities, then at some point Japan and the United States, and whichever other allied countries that were impacted, could begin to work towards a better future foreign policy that can help each other. There are clearly still tensions between the countries, and though it has gotten better than it was at one point, there is still a lot of work to do. In order to better the future, you must admit your wrongs, and make it clear when an apology is deserved.
27. Gillian Waitzman October 2, 2018 at 9:00 pm

    1. In the speech given by Obama to Hiroshima, I do not think he apologized for the atomic bombings. In my opinion, Obamas speech was more of him expressing that we need to do things differently now and honor those who suffered from the past horrific event, not an apology. Obama wanted everyone who was listening to his speech to comprehend that there is and still will be war everywhere in the world, but we must be better than that. With powerful weapons like bombs, guns, and tanks we must be perceptive and observant of what will or could happen to the places and people around us. Obama does not blame the bombing completely on his country nor his people, but shows empathy to the people of Hiroshima and voices that we can all do better.
    2. After reading the “things to think about” section, the comment that resonates with me the most is “Japanese hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” In my opinion, I thought the bombing of Pearl Harbor was needed. Although we will never be 100% positive of the outcome if we chose the alternative to invade Japan, I believe that hundreds of thousands of more soldiers would have died or suffered greatly. Both acts were disastrous events that killed many, however, were not comparable since the bombing from the United States was in Japan’s civilian cities and the bombing of Pearl Harbor was in the U.S. Military bases. Another reason as to why I do not see them as comparable is because America gave Japan an ultimatum before dropping the bombs and on the other side, Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike. I do agree that Japan should apologize still and make amends, but I do not think the two acts of Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima are comparable.
    3. The opinion out of the five from the New York Times article that best fits with my own views on this issue is that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” Although I do not necessarily agree 100% with this opinion, it best fits with my own views. I do think the president should apologize to make amends and respect the people who died or lost someone. However, I do agree with the opinion that we saved lives by avoiding an invasion of Japan. I think if we went with the alternative of the invasion, the outcome would have killed, injured, and hurt many more. The United States wished to end the war with a fast solution and protect themselves while doing it. I believe that the United States did what they thought was their easiest and fastest way out.
28. Walter LaMar October 2, 2018 at 9:02 pm

    Walter LaMar
    My questions:
    1. Read over Obama’s speech. Do you think he apologized for the atomic bombings? Why or why not? No Obama didn’t apologize for the atomic bombs because all he did was accept that the U.S. dropped the bomb and will make sure it never happens again. More so, just as the text said there is no time machine. What’s done is done and there’s nothing you can change. Also, I feel apologizing wouldn’t be right or more like unnecessary, War is a cruel thing and everyone participating knew. Everyone fought for what they believed in no matter if they were wrong in the end and there’s no shame in doing that.

    2. Using the “things to think about” section, which of these comments resonates with you the most? Explain. One comment that resonates to me the most is – Americans have been worshipping our war heroes, but the nuclear bombs make it seem like they might have done something wrong. The comment resonates to me because I disagree entirely. The whole idea of right or wrong changes extremely throughout time and during WWII I say that was not the best ideas but one of the better ideas. Even if its portrayed wrong now, before not as bad.

    3. Which of the five opinions from the New York Times article fits best with your own views on this issue? Why? My opinion on the New York Times Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” Like I stated earlier, in WWII everyone fought for what they thought was right even though they ended up wrong and there’s no need to apologize. Although that doesn’t mean you can’t change your way of thinking and admit that you were wrong. Obama did exactly that throughout the speech there wasn’t a single word for apologizing, instead, he lamented over the deaths and said: “But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” Not one word apologizing for the words lost, however, he said they will do whatever they can to prevent this from happening again
29. Aarani Balendran October 2, 2018 at 9:19 pm

    I do not think that President Obama apologizes for the bomb dropping in his speech. This does not mean that he felt that the bombing was justified, he just didn’t blatantly say sorry on behalf of the US. I think the way he addressed this was wise. As a president he is a well-known man and represents this country as a whole, for him to side with one-half of the country’s beliefs would kill his reputation not to mention would not be representing the whole nation. In his speech, he tells us all his opinion on how bad the bomb affected the Japanese and that no words could describe the suffering they went through. He also talks about how in the future there need to be better solutions and we shouldn’t have to go to this extreme. This implies that he is not all for the nuclear weapons in the world.

    “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology ‘doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.’” Although I think what Obama did was smart, I also believe apologies sometimes won’t hurt. In the end, I think it depends on the situation and reactions of the apology. If the apology is going to get people riled up, then explain that it was a tragedy, but if everyone, or at least most people agree then what is the harm?

    “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” I agree most with the second person. Obama did just that, and it worked. We understood how he feels about what the Japanese went through but we didn’t have to apologize. Clearly, there were reasons for what was done and either way there would have been a tragedy.
30. Isaac Michaels October 2, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    I think Obama did not specifically apologize for the bombings, but instead said to look back on it and make sure something so horrible doesn’t ever happen again. I liked his speech, but I do think he should have been more apoligetic and say something about the victims. It is very important to make sure that we look back on the event, and he did a good job explaining that, as well as promoting future peace. He seemed against any future atomic or nuclear bombs being used, and I would agree that a nuclear war would be awful and all nations should try and be more peaceful, and if war does come, not attack innocent civilians.
    The statement to think about that really connected to me was about the Pearl Harbour attack by Japan, and how that situation was different from the atomic bombs. To me, the Pearl Harbour attack was an attack that killed people just for the sake of war and world domination. The attacks on Japan by the U.S. however were a reaction to Japan’s attack, we gave them a warning before, and it was to stop more deaths from an all out invasion.
    The second statement in The New York times connected with me, as I do believe that the bombings were justified, but we should apologize for the damage and death resulting from it. The civilians were innocent, and they deserve sympathies, but you can apologize for that without apologizing for the actual dropping of the bomb. What the article said about what Obama could do was well said, and I agree.
31. Amelia Margolis October 2, 2018 at 9:40 pm

    In Obama’s speech, I think he is apologizing. He doesn’t literally say we are sorry but it is implied throughout the speech. I think this because, a main focus in his speech is how we killed innocent people, and the feelings involved with the bomb. He says how we need to move past nuclear war. He also talks about how countries all want to be on top, dominating other countries. I think when he says this he is kind of making an excuse to why it happens. On the other hand in his speech he also says, “Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering.” When saying this to me it sounds like there was no way to repay Japan for what we did. Overall in his speech I think it is implied that he is apologizing without literally saying it. The thing I resonate most with is the thought of, are Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombs being dropped comparable acts. This is actually something I thought of myself when studying this. On one hand Pearl Harbor was a surprise to us, but we kind of gave Japan a warning by telling them to surrender. On the other hand, we killed way more innocent people then they did. I guess it depends on the way you see this question. Maybe, if Japan did surrender it wouldn’t had to have gotten to the point of nuclear war. But, maybe we should have given them another chance to surrender. I don’t think they would have surrendered though, because of the way their culture is. There is no real way to tell if the two attacks are comparable, it’s all opinion. The 4th opinion in the New York Times article is the one I agree the most with. I think getting the Japanese to realize their past would help the situation. It will give the Japanese another point of view and make them see the reason that someone had to do what we did. I think always getting another point of view can always help people see the bigger picture, and how others felt about the situation. The Japanese could see what all the other countries thought was going on. It just gives a whole new perspective.
32. Samuel Sundberg October 2, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    I believe President Barack Obama did not apologize to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the bomb dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his “apologizing” speech he points at the fact that when our society advances in molecular science our human institution has to also advance. He explains that we are blinded by the power we have. We therefore must be cautious about how we use the bomb in the future and looks back on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an example. When he talks about having a moral revolution along with the scientific revolution he’s saying that with great power comes responsibility. Many people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the bomb drops but, it was also a crucial decision by the U.S. It helped prevent a total war between Japan and the United states. He talks about how a mere apology would not make up for the fact that we killed thousands of Japanese people. He says the only way we can apologize is to show that we learned from the tragic experience. In the beginning he says that the Japanese people are watching to see if we do the same mistake again because it was such a tragic experience for them. We are the examples for many countries because we are a global superpower.
    The question “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” poses a huge controversial topic. Personally, I believe they are not comparable. It was completely unacceptable for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. It was the start of the war between Japan and the United States. We responded with the biggest mistake we ever made in war. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unacceptable. On December 7 1941, the Japanese bombarded Pearl Harbor, Hawaii with bombs and guns. Four years later in 1945 is when we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had four years to decide whether or not we are going to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. Some people would believe that the bombing was completely reasonable because the Japanese caused it by bombing Pearl Harbor. I do not believe that. I believe that to many innocent people died for it to be right to say that the bombing was reasonable.
    The first quote in the New York Times article fits my own views on the situation. The quote, “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to,” explains that we are the big brother to other countries. We have been on top of the Global food chain for a while and we have been participating in many global conflicts such as WW1 and WW2. Many lower class countries look up to us and if we make the same mistake we did to Japan we will be frowned upon. Many other Global superpowers such as Great Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia are also keeping a close eye on us. We have to be careful with how we use these technological advances. We could either use them for good or for evil and it all comes back to the saying, “great power comes with great responsibility.”
33. Joshua Wallington October 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm

    I don’t think Obama is apologizing for the use of the atomic bombs in his speech. In his speech to the people of Japan, he talks about the atomic bomb and how brutal warfare is and how with technological advances we should also think more. Obama’s main point of the speech, in my opinion, is that we should learn from the past and that with any decision that can drastically change anyone’s lives we should think more about everyone involved. Obama says that with scientific and technological revolution there should be a moral revolution as well. Obama doesn’t assign blame to anyone during his speech. Obama talks about how much we have to change and find other ways to settle disagreements instead of using violence. The question that resonates with me most is “Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population?” I believe we do have a moral obligation and that it is necessary to lead the way with nuclear weapons. When we first used a nuclear weapon, we were unaware of the full potential of nuclear warfare. I agree with what Obama said in his speech. He said that we need to find other ways to find diplomatic solutions instead of using atomic weapons to wipe people out. I concur with the statement, “Obama could lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” Obama doesn’t need to apologize to lament for the damage caused by the bombs. Obama did a good job in his speech explaining that we should learn from the past and think about the moral implications before we proceed with any action against another country. Obama talks about what the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us about humanity. He also discusses how we must look at history and not repeat it. We have had significant advances in technology since 1945 and we have other ways to obtain peace without having to drop an atomic bomb on innocent people to end a war. Obama was not obligated to apologize because his grief and regret could be felt throughout his speech.
34. Lily Abraam October 2, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    I believe that President Barack Obama did not apologize in his speech because he says, “Mere words cannot give a voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to looks directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” Obama never truly apologized, he just talked about how he felt bad for the Japanese under the attack. If it was a true apology he would’ve said something on the lines of “I am very sorry for the bombs that we dropped on Japan. Obama made it seem like he was going to apologize after the sentence where he says “… words cannot give a voice to such suffering” following that an apology would have made sense. I believe that Obama should have apologized because if he did the Japanese could have forgiven us, with that, we could have another ally.

    The bullet that I resonate most with is Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologizing for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” This fits perfectly with my claim because I believe that if the President was to apologize to Japan they would think nicely of the country instead of, they bombed us many years ago. If we were to apologize it would help us with becoming allies with them, which would then lead to better trade and benefits from being their ally. Since “an apology doesn’t cost anything” it wouldn’t hurt the U.S to apologize and make up with Japan, even if they didn’t forgive us, it would be a nice thing to do.

    A third person said that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” I agree with this statement because we decided to help the Japanese instead of slowly destroying their country in a long, hard war. The U.S didn’t drop the bombs to kill random people, it was used to scare the Japanese into surrendering from terrorizing the U.S. So, I believe if the U.S would have invaded Japan it would have killed more innocent people than the bombings. The U.S. shouldn’t have to apologize for something they helped with.
35. Sydney Green October 2, 2018 at 10:05 pm

    1.) Personally, I do not believe that former president Barack Obama is apologizing. I concieve that Obama is simply saying that all of the actions of the war are bad. He certainly admits that it was a bad thing and his responsibility, but never necessarily apologizes. “Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. BUt we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again” Obama says. Obama is overall saying that instead of apologizing we simply all need to look back at our history as a united globe and learn from past mistakes.
    2.)The comment that resonates to me most is “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable? Honestly the idea of Japan apologizing for the bombing Pearl Harbor has not even come to my mind. Typically, the United States is much more pressed to apologize than Japan. But the bombing of Pearl Harbor is nothing is compared to the bombing of Japan. This may have been the better option rather than invading Japan, but this was a disaster that destroyed cities and killed millions of civilians. Essentially, even though Pearl Harbor only destroyed ou product and not people they should still apologize and so should we.
    3.)The opinion from the New York Times that best fits my views is the one that states “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” The US didn’t apologize and honestly doesn’t need to. The past is past, and the action that Truman took at the time ended WW2 and caused Japan to surrender. This also saved the lives of many American soldiers even though it costed many Japanese lives. This may have been a very critical decision to make but I believe it was the right one and this opinion definitely backs up my beliefs.
36. Aaliyah Winston October 2, 2018 at 10:06 pm

    In the speech at Hiroshima, Obama did not, per se, apologize for the atomic bombings. Instead, he explained that what happened, (at the time, it was 71 years ago), back in 1945 should never happen again. He wished to obliterate the possibility of catastrophe among any other the countries in the world as well as to get rid of all nuclear weapons. He discussed the effects of the bombing and how it negatively impacted the lives of many men, women, and children in Japan. He compared the families in the two cities to those in America. He added that they lived their everyday lives exactly how we lived ours and that it was an unexpected tragedy indeed. Although Obama did exclaim these points, never once did he specifically apologize for the disaster we unleashed upon the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Furthermore, “America has apologized for many things, but there are also many things we have NOT apologized for,” sticks with me. This is because much of the havoc we have caused as a country can only be labeled as “necessary” to apologize for. For example, the mass genocide of Native Americans when we first arrived here, slavery of African Americans, internment camps, etc. However, there are things like the atomic bombings, continuous racial discrimination, and the un-authorization of those from third-world immigrants that we still haven’t spoken towards. Regardless of how long ago these mistakes were made, they can still be apologized for; This would spark many more allies and trading partners as well. Like I’ve declared before, America is FAR from perfect considering these things.
    Finally, the third opinion stated by the New York Times corresponds most me. I also believe that Obama, followed by no president, should be obligated to apologize for the landing of the atomic bombs. At the time, Truman was president and made the decision that best fit the United States, this was despite of the long-term damage the choice would cause. This standpoint overall expresses that what happened on August 6, 1945 cannot be undone. It was in retaliation of Pearl Harbor and is, in a way, not ENTIRELY, justified.
37. Taylor Mahle October 2, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    Apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    1) When Obama gave his speech to the Japanese, about Hiroshima, he spoke about the revolution of technology and how it “allows us to bend nature to our will”. He also talked about how he couldn’t “give a voice” to the victims of Hiroshima. Within all these things Obama also spoke some heartwarming words. Although Obama was very sympathetic to the Japanese, I believe he didn’t apologize. Instead of apologizing, Obama basically said that we now have the history of Hiroshima and “we must do differently” to control the ache again.

    2) Knowing that America has been the only country to use a bomb in 1945. When you ask “Does America have the moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons”, it’s hard to say we are leaders because we have used nuclear weapons. With the history of Hiroshima, countries know the negative effects of these bombs caused to the environment, people and economy. These effects help other countries see our mistakes and show us the way. Therefore, America doesn’t have the moral obligation to lead the way but has a moral obligation to change the way of our past use of nuclear weapons.

    3) The New York Times opinion that fits the best with my view is the first person. They said “An apology would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond too” In the above questions, I went over how America now knows how the bomb effects nations. I also said that Obama spoke heartwarming words. Since, Obama had already said some nicer statements, I believe that if he apologized it might relieve some ongoing tension. This fits best with my personal view because I don’t think we made the right decision to drop the bomb, and with the wrong decision completed, we should own up to our mistake.
38. mostafa ghanem October 2, 2018 at 10:17 pm

    I believe that in Obama’s speech he did not apologize on the behalf of the U.S. for the dropping of the atomic bombs. He does not agree with what terrible events happen in Japan, and he does not like the use of nuclear weapons. He talks about how we must remember the events that took place to use as an example for the future. He also states that as technology advances so should the morals of the people. He does not say that America specifically apologies for it. He also says that words could not describe the suffering of people and so i think he also means that an apology would not be enough anyway. He just says using atomic weapons are wrong and we should use this tragic event as an example to make sure the use of these awful weapons never happen again.
    I consider the apology of the Canadian Prime minister a nice gesture. It means nothing the acts that were done in the past can never be taken back by a some words said years later by people who were not part of the even. I know that they are talking on the behalf of the earlier generations, but it does is not as genuine as if the people who were actually involved in the events apologized. If the U.S. apologized like Candia for the things it had done in the past people would feel that it is way to late for an apology and that it does not mean anything. It does not change the events that happen before. For example the dropping of the atomic bombs and if America apologizes for it does not change the number of lives that were lost in Japan.
    I agree with the fifth opinion on what Obama should do for his speech. He should say something about all his advocating for the reduction of the nuclear weapons He should talk about all the steps that America is taking to reassure people that the events that happened in Japan will never happen again. It would show that America understands the struggle that Japan had been through after the bombing and never wants to put a country through that again. America wants to make sure that no country including itself ever used nuclear weapons against another country.
39. Lily Koza October 2, 2018 at 10:32 pm

    1) I believe Obama’s speech portrayed his sympathy on behalf of Americans for the innocent lives taken by the United States by dropping of the Atomic Bombs. I do not however believe he is apologizing. He claims at the end of his speech that we should learn from this and the memory of this day should never fade. Obama in his speech states “ We come to mourn the dead, including 100,000 Japanese men, women, and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner”. This is proving that instead of an apology this speech was used as a remembrance and mourning for the lost lives.

    2)“Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” best correlates with speech Obama gave in Hiroshima in May of 2016. Both were major bombings killing thousands on innocent lives. Although the atomic bombs were on a greater scale wiping out cities, both were brought on through the rage of war. I believe these two acts are comparable on the meaning behind it but not through the outcome. Both countries have yet to formally apologize for the actions taken, but both mourn the innocent lives taken.

    3) My views are best seen through the quote, “ we see these stories in the hibakusha. The women who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was the war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own”. My views correlate with this quote because it shows the loss on both sides and the mourning even by the Americans through this tragedy. This war brought out the best science and technological devices with the worst outcome. August 6, 1945 will never be forgotten but should be looked back on as a learning experience for the world and should never be repeated.
40. Monica Inda October 2, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    In my opinion, former president Barack Obama did not apologize on the behalf of America for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Obama proves he does have sympathy for those who lost their lives as well as to those that were affected by the bombing as he tells us that the souls of the lost lives speak to us and that we should never forget that fateful day. He also states that we need to realize the responsibilities that comes with great technological advancements, such as the atomic bomb, and that we need to use them wisely. Obama also touches on the fact that we as an entire world must change our mindset about war to make sure that a catastrophe like the bombing never has to be faced by any nation or people. I think the point of Obama’s speech was not to apologize but to condemn Hiroshima and Nagasaki as learning moments that the whole world can value from.
    The comment that resonates with me the most is “An apology ‘doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do’” because I believe most of this statement is not correct. An apology is used when you feel regretful or remorseful because of your actions and you want the other person or group to know so which is usually the first step to rebuilding a relationship. Yes, you may not be able to go back in time and change the decision that was made or help the people you hurt, but by apologizing you are showing that you want to move forward from the past without being afraid to acknowledge your wrongs. I think this would have an impact on policy because once you move past a disagreement or grudge, you can finally start advancing for the future, whether that is nationally, internationally or any level.
    The second opinion from the New York Times article fits best with my own views on this issue because that’s exactly what I think America should do. I think the United States should lament the destruction that the bomb caused, without apologizing for dropping the bomb itself. I believe that that sort of apology would help people overseas that were affected by the bomb see that America was in a war and we saw a way out, which we took. Although there may have been a different, better or more logical way to end the war, the atomic bomb was the option the American government could see at the time. I feel like this would be the best as it would make the US a more respectable country which I think is what the second person is referencing.
41. Dilan Daniels October 2, 2018 at 10:37 pm

    President Obama’s speech at the Hiroshima memorial spoke of the mourning of the many deaths seen in the atomic explosion on August 6th. His words near the beginning of the speech, “We come here to mourn the dead”, echoes to the lives lost in the explosion in an expression of empathy towards victims. We as the readers are asked to view those affected by the bomb as a way to realize the actions of humanity and what they have become, as dropping this bomb to destroy industrial targets and in turn killing civilians in collateral damage was a bit of a brutal act. The words of the president ask us to learn and advance human morality against the power of intended and mass destruction of other humans. The use of Hiroshima as a catalyst of international friendship shows that the United States have in ways have tried greatly to apologize for the bombing.
    Although, Japan is not completely free of their own faults. Events such as ‘The Raping of Nanking’ and horrific acts against prisoners of war were some of Japan’s actions that they could possibly apologize for. As for an event that was against Americans directly, Pearl Harbor is an event that the Japanese did cause and also ended up killing American civilians in the process of destroying military targets. Comparability between the two events is slightly shaky, mostly because of the disproportionate amount of civilian casualties suffered between events, but also due to the context of the events, as Japan was already about to lose before Hiroshima, while America wasn’t even in the war before Pearl Harbor. An apology from Japan in response to our apology would be a gesture of slightly unexpected courtesy, but would show that Japan is willing to come to terms with what they had done during World War Two.
    However, resolution of previous actions isn’t an easy task in some events, especially if they happened multiple decades in the past. The fourth opinion of the article, which suggests the Obama’s use of the speech to get Japan to confront their legacy in response to our apology, does have proper justification, as we were not the only ones in the war who committed to the numerous obscenities of World War Two. Disputes over events of WW2 in Japan, most famously ‘The Rape of Nanking’ are exemplifications of such difficulties that occur when talking about the past. Similar to the Holocaust, denial in Japan of events that happened in Nanking have yet to be resolved to some people. Going back to the use of the speech to make Japan confess, while the opinion does express good reasoning, the use of the speech alone will not make Japan confess.
42. Thomas Forberg October 2, 2018 at 10:39 pm

    1.)I do not think Obama apologized, i think that his main focus was to show far the world has come with peace, and how we should learn from what happened during the wars, and that those things should never have to happen ever again. However I do think he touched on how it wasnt any particular nations fault but both nations contributed to what happened that way, and i’m not saying that america wasn’t the one who dropped the bomb, they most definitely were but the war leading up to that point was horrific and should never be repeated ever again by both the japanese and the americans.
    2.)Q:Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable? A: The tension between america and japan began after japan started taking over countries in the east indies. Japan was afraid the americans would interfere and america’s navy was the best in the world at the time which was a threat to the japaneses conquest. Japan’s solution was to bomb pearl harbor. The reason america bombed japan was to end the bloody war. The pearl harbor attack had roughly 3300 casualties and the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki had over 220,000 people. The death toll of the atomic bombings are much greater the only comparison i think there is, why bomb innocent people. Japan had not declared war on U.S and The U.S had not declared war on japan so the soldiers in pearl harbor were innocent. And the people who died to the nuclear bombs were innocent japanese citizens. No one deserved to die in those attacks.
    3.The second quote in my opinion is the most fitting for my claim, although former president Obama didn’t directly apologize for the destruction and death the bombs caused but he touched on how these terms shall never be reached again and we should learn from our mistakes. Never again should such a large number of innocent people be the cost to end a war.
43. Sam Mercer October 2, 2018 at 10:43 pm

    In Obama’s speech in Hiroshima I believe he apologized for America’s acts of dropping the Atomic bombs. Obama talked about when technological and scientific advances are made in the world it can help fly above the clouds, cure disease, communicate across the seas, and find the cosmos but those advancements can help create more advanced weapons of war and killing machines that can doom us. Obama said to remember the over 100,000 Japanese men, women, and children of where they were standing at the moment and feel the dread of the children confused by what they see and listen to the silent cry. Obama stated that countries with a mass arsenal of nuclear weapons such as the US that they should consider reducing or getting rid of these weapons altogether. Obama apologized by stating that countries should try to solve conflicts with diplomatic relations instead of using weapons of mass destruction. He also stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered as not the dawn of an atomic war but the start of a moral awakening.
    Now that Obama has apologized for dropping the atomic bombs I believe Japan should apologize for Pearl Harbor. I disagree with some of what Obama had said in his speech in Hiroshima and I believe if he was going to apologize I would’ve preferred him to do it after the Japanese apologized for Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was the worst attack on US soil until September 11, 2001. It killed 2,403 people Including many innocent Americans just as the atomic bomb did. The 2,403 deaths from Pearl Harbor are small compared to the 100,000+ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the dropping of the atomic bombs was an act of retaliation against the Japanese during the deadliest war in the world. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the US for holding off trade with Japan a decision that didn’t kill any Japanese. I believe that the Japanese need to apologize for this attack from out of nowhere on Innocent Americans especially now after we apologized for the dropping of the atomic bombs.
    I think the third opinion that Obama should not apologize for the dropping of the Atomic bombs because it saved many American lives by not having to invade Japan. I believe an apology for a past American decision isn’t always needed because I believe that in some instances it was the right decision for America. In the cases of the enslavement of African- Americans and internment of Japanese Americans in America definitely require an apology because both of those decisions were not American and were evil and inhuman. But in the case of the dropping of the atomic bombs those were good American decisions made during a time of war. The decision to drop the atomic bombs saved many American lives and was an act of retaliation against Japan for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
44. Matthew Inda October 2, 2018 at 11:01 pm

    Although many may say the Japanese deserved an apology, in my opinion, President Obama never apologized, and shouldn’t have, for the bombings which occured during World War. He mentions how the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided a large step in the advancement of technology, and showed the evil mankind could create. The bombs were a symbol to end, and bring back peace, which costed the lives of over a hundred thousand people, but the former president never apologizes for it. Obama had not control over the actions of former presidents, making the events in which occurred not his fault. Rather than being sorry, Obama’s speech was about reflection, and how the countries involved improved not only themselves, but the relationships with one another. As it wouldn’t have made a dramatic impact on Japanese society, and only being a “nice thing to do”, apologizing wasn’t necessary, and fixing the errors of society would have a much greater effect.

    The comment stating “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” resonates with me the most. Although they both caused a plethora of damage, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a much greater effect. Over 50 times the amount of people died in the bombing of Hiroshima alone than in Pearl Harbor. Additionally, both atomic bombs were on major cities, which nearly destroyed every building, in addition to the population, in its path. Therefore, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was extremely less effective than of those in which had influence of the atomic bomb, which were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The third person interviewed from the New York Times fits best with my views. This person states that the president shouldn’t apologize, as the bombs saved lives by avoiding a military invasion, which I agree with. The atomic bombs, although causing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian deaths, saved the lives of many soldiers of both America and Japanese due to the fact that the military invasion was avoided. Additionally, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, eliminating any future conflict which may lead into another war to occur.
45. Andrew Inda October 2, 2018 at 11:02 pm

    Throughout his speech, President Obama talked about the impacts, and identities of the people lost due to this catastrophic event. Although not spoken directly, President Obama did end up apologizing for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He first addresses the fact that technological advancements ended up surpassing human institution. This became very harmful to society, as people were becoming more powerful without control nor balance. With minor advancements in other aspects of life, people did not know how to react or what to do in hopes to resolve this. He then points out that the bombings did not just devastate the city, but the people and their emotions as well. Moral recovery can seem as non-existent, yet this may be the country’s most difficult obstacle to pass. Finally, the President confronted the fact that there could have been different solutions. This is where is apology is most apparent, as he relates the bombs as the suffering of Japan, and the difference it would have made if the United States had taken a different approach.
    The comment resonating with me the most is: Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable? This question made me think about our decisions on a deeper level in relation to Japan’s. Both of these countries were the first to do something horrific during World War II. As Japan was the first country to attack the United States (aside from minor casualties from Germany toward American sailors), America was the first to use such a deadly weapon. Sure, opinions today suggest that the atomic bomb was more catastrophic. Opposedly, Japan’s attack seemed to put America at risk more than ever before, as we had no knowledge of the situation and risks we would soon face.
    The opinion from the New York Times article that best agrees with my point is the second opinion, starting with President Obama went to. This section of the article emphasizes the fact that apologizing for the dropping of the atomic bombs would restore trust and reliance between other countries and the United States, especially Japan. This argument is near the same to the point that I have been supporting, as I agree that apologizing because of the destruction and devastation created by the bombs was not thoroughly supported. Although releasing these weapons may have seemed like a good idea at the time, today, the damage that they had created does not seem justifiable.
46. Anders Povirk October 2, 2018 at 11:49 pm

    1) I do not believe that Obama apologized for the bombings but instead emphasized the humanity of the victims and the moral significance of the event rather than directly apologizing. The importance Obama places on individual who died is shown when he says “Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think.”. He also shows his belief of the moral significance of the event when he states “That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.”. Here Obama is highlighting how important of a moral lesson Hiroshima was and how it can be seen as a reference point for future decisions.

    2) – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” This point resonates with me the most with many using apologies and token gestures as ways of avoiding repercussions. In this way, apologies should be seen as a token of good faith but not enough to be any consolation in and of itself. On the other hand not apologizing sends a signal of strength and lack of remorse which can be just as important. Overall it just seems that the simple apology with no further action is more useless than outright not apologizing.

    1) I believe that option 2 is the best because while I believe it is not Obama’s responsibility to apologize for the actions of the past it is his responsibility to emphasize the devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the importance of not using them ever again. The reason I think that it is not Obama’s place to apologize for the dropping of the bombs is that the event happened over 70 years ago under completely different leadership and under completely different circumstances. Furthermore, relations between the US and Japan are already long established and tokens of good faith are no longer necessary with an already healthy relationship. On the other hand, it is still important to emphasize the destruction caused by the bombs as it is as important as ever that nuclear conflict does not break out. This also indicates that Obama is not uncaring about what happened to the citizens living in the city and that the actions taken there will not be repeated.
47. Mecca Terrell October 3, 2018 at 6:40 am

    1) I think that Obama did apologize for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not in the way Japan had hoped he would. To me, it didn’t really seem like he made an apology on behalf of the US for bombing Japan, but that he more so apologized about the circumstances that might have caused the bombing to be an option. He talked about how since the beginning of time, we as the human race often have trouble determining our morals and deciphering whether the actions we take are right or wrong. And even though it’s good that Obama is addressing this issue and wants us to improve as a species, to some extent, I feel like he is using this as an excuse for the US not taking full responsibility for the decision to bomb Japan.
    2) It seems that liberals want to be transparent, self-critical, and ask “are we living up to our values?” Conservatives stress national strength and unity, they want to instill pride, and remember the great things that we have done as a country. -This statement makes me think about how the bombing might have affected citizens within the US, especially when it comes to their sense of national identity. The bombing had to be one of the most controversial events of the decade, or even the century, bound to raise public disagreement about whether it was justified or not. The conservatives and liberals are perfect examples of how this event not only affected politics, but how it affected everyday life, seeing that the majority of the nation had completely contradictory interpretations of the bombing. It ultimately shows how the bombing, in a way, pitted our nation’s citizens against each other.
    3) I agree most with the first opinion made in the New York Times article. I understand the point of view showing that the US had to use the bombs as a sure fire way to end the war, preventing a much larger war from happening that would’ve resulted in even more bloodshed. But after all these years, it seems like the US has constantly struggled to take responsibility for dropping the bomb on Japan. Seeing that the US has had a large influence in the development of others countries and their governments in the past, I agree when the opinion says that a formal apology from the US for the bombings might show other countries that if two of the most powerful nations can make amends and create peace, then maybe they can too.
48. Clare Birley October 3, 2018 at 6:53 am

    Obama’s speech was not an apology for dropping nuclear bombs on Japan, but a plea for everyone to never forget the mistake that our predecessors made. To remember, and to never make it ourselves so that future generations can live in a safe world. Obama didn’t drop the bomb. Harry Truman, 70 years ago, dropped the bomb, and it forever changed warfare. Our country may have started this over half a century ago, but not even our oldest generation was conscious of that decision. The same goes for Japan. We don’t go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to apologize, but to remember this watershed in history. That’s what Obama has accomplished in his speech. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have apologized to Native Canadians, stating an apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.”, but i don’t think the nice thing to do is the right thing. An apology won’t make the future generations that live in these affected cities feel any better, won’t encourage people to remember our history, and won’t bring back the thousands of people who are dead. An apology is an insult in this situation, it does absolutely nothing.
    In the New York Times article, the opinion that I most agree with is the opinion that stated Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” This is my personal opinion of what Obama accomplished, because he did it in an eloquent way that everyone could connect to. I think that Harry Truman made a mistake dropping the bomb, but it is not us who is responsible for apologizing. It is our responsibility to make sure we and our future generations never forget what happened, and also make sure that it never happens again.
49. ateeyah October 3, 2018 at 8:59 am

    Obama did not apologize for the bombings. In his speech, he was talking about just advancing as a world and how children today they can go home and have a happy day. I don’t think he acknowledged how there are long time effects to the parents and grandparents like radiation or even losing their parents. The Japanese may not have apologized for pearl harbor but we should not shun the mass who had nothing to do with pearl harbor because of the acts of the few. “Would an apology open the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing”? This comment resonates with me the most because I think an apology may not immediately make everything okay but it would be helpful because we both did something bad to each other people including children women and adults. I think we can make amends. The opinion I agree with is the fourth opinion. “A fourth opinion suggested Obama use his speech to get the Japanese to confront their troubled legacy from World War 2 and their atrocities in Korea and China.” I agree with this opinion because I feel that he didn’t confront Japanese on the bombing situation between us and them. Instead were trying to divert to the Japanese and their legacy.
50. Liam O'Gorman October 3, 2018 at 5:14 pm

    1.)I think that president Obama didn’t apologized but instead called upon people of the future to not make such foolish mistakes that will cause such destruction again. He wanted to have people realize that with great power comes great responsibility and we can’t let our anger control such important decisions like using those atomic weapons. Obama told us that it isn’t okay to justify the killing of 200,000 people because we had the technology to do so. 2)America shouldn’t have the responsibility to lead the way in nuclear weaponry, but in my opinion no one should advance nuclear weaponry. We already have enough power to destroy ourselves so why should we try and make it worse? The fact that we used them on a population also means that in the right circumstances we will use them. But Japan also hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor but I believe that doesn’t justify us not apologizing. Both were extreme acts of aggression that caused horrible events but the numbers were 200,000 to 2,400 and we should’ve been more responsible and apologized first.3.) I partially agree with the third person from that article who said that more total lives would’ve been lost if we didn’t launch the nukes. I Think that many lives would be lost if we didn’t use them but it would be hard to rival the 200,000 deaths that the bombs caused. The other thing to think about was the fear that they caused that made Japan surrender earlier than they would’ve if we invaded. The other thing to think about is whose lives were taken. If we were to have a land invasion than we could control who we killed and avoid civilian casualties while the bombs indiscriminately killed thousands of people instantly.