Michael KreponTo Hiroshima (cont.)













  1. Sean Wain Dunlevy (History)

    1st April?

  2. Edward Parris (Retired Bombardier for Nuclear Weapons) (History)

    Obama’s commitment to speak at Hiroshima is a foreign policy blunder. Actions speak louder than words. News reports state that the US is redesigning strategic nuclear weapons so that they might be used on a tactical battlefield. Advisors say that this action will provide greater military flexibility while facilitating the use of weapons systems designed for another era. If Obama desires to be seen as a man of Peace, he should steer clear of Hiroshima, one of the great manmade disasters of all time.

  3. Jonah Speaks (History)

    Whether Obama visits Hiroshima or not, the question is what can Obama do now to earn his Nobel prize? Even 8 years as President was insufficient to advance this cause, without significant domestic or international political support. As a lame-duck President, or ex-President, what can Obama do to shape future political support on nuclear disarmament and other measures to reduce nuclear risk?

    Yes, Obama can speak in favor of the nuclear test-ban treaty. But that is only one of many steps on a long road to global zero – assuming we get there. In the meantime there is a significant risk of nuclear war. What can be done to reduce this risk?

    Among other things, nations can reduce nuclear risk by pledging no first use of nuclear weapons. In particular, no use of tactical weapons, no nuclear response to conventional attacks, no launch on warning, and no disproportionate response if there ever is a nuclear attack. And no threat or ambiguous option to do any of the preceding. Arms control and other treaties can shore up these pledges, but the pledges need to be there to shore up.

  4. Gregory Matteson (History)

    The ferocity with which all sides in World War II prosecuted war against the general population, perpetuated in the MAD doctrine, is something that should not be repeated. A visit by the President of the United States to Hiroshima surely is an acknowledgement of this. What a visit would not be, and should not be stated as, is an apology. In the context of 71 years of history and evolution in the public conscience, we cannot second guess President Truman’s decision, or the decision of the men who carried out his orders, no matter our private opinions.

  5. Michael Krepon (History)

Pin It on Pinterest