So…you basically support the North Korean side on the abduction issue. Is that what you’re saying?

(Matt, I’m driving traffic to you here. Open up the commenting on your blog and take advantage of it.)

First, to answer your question: Yes, I’ve been to the museum in Hiroshima, but have not yet been to the new one in Nagasaki. I’ve read the collections of letters and essays by hibakusha, as well as seen their drawings and paintings. I’ve seen the photos, the documentaries, Barefoot Gen, and more.

I also won’t presume to say what would or would not have happened had the bombs not been dropped. In hindsight, I think we could say that there would not have been a large scale war in Japan. Looking back from the elevation of the present, it seems that most people in Japan were fed up with the war and would not have fought tooth and nail with farm implements given any choice.
However, had there been the fight to the end that American military planners seem to have expected, it is entirely possible, even likely that the number of Japanese civilian casualties would have exceeded the number of people killed by the bombs.

I think you might be conflating my defense of Kyuma with a defense of his position. This is not the case.

I don’t think the atomic bombings are the central issue, though. The fact remains that the straw that broke the camel’s back in Kyuma’s case was voicing the minority opinion (polls show 20% of respondents agreeing with the view Kyuma expressed.) Kyuma said something unpopular, not something radical or off the deep end. He voiced no irresponsible opinion. He violated a code of political correctness often abused despite the noble intention at its heart.

Mayor Taue can feel all the responsibility for preventing the future use of nuclear weapons that he wants. I would fully support him in that. That, though, is not what he did. He issued an indignant defense against something Kyuma did not say. That is dishonest political opportunism.

The current kantei brings up Japan’s status as the only country to have suffered a direct nuclear attack nearly every time it gets anxious about the possibility of some of Japan’s negative points being brought up. That is not anti-nuclear campaigning in the vein of the sincere hopes of those who have seen unspeakable horrors, it is disgraceful abuse of the tragedy (and I use the word in the purest sense) for selfish, myopic ends. It is the antithesis of what genuine pacifism would look like.

There must be over 2,000 words in that editorial - you choose one, take it completely out of context, ignore the rest of what’s there, and go on to say that I’ve put forth something that’s all form and no substance. Give me a break.

Then you go on to make a braod generalization about the state of two countries’ journalistic standards, apparently basing the entire Japan side of that equation on one misunderstood word from my editorial.

Perhaps you’d like all writing to be bullet points, with no style, no room for thought. Perhaps we should all stick to words that cannot possibly be misinterpreted, do away with variety and color, get rid of humor and subtlety.

When you read profiles, do you get upset if they describe what the subject looks or acts like?

Think when you read, Cal, it’ll make the world a lot more interesting.

I have now come to accept in my mind that in order to end the War, it could not be helped that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy.

But how do you really feel about Mr. Kyuma?

Is being ‘diminutive’ the issue or even part of it?

It seems that the art of form over substance is as much alive and well in Japan as in the US.

Whatever the reasons behind it, though, Kyuma’s remark did not deserve the outrage heaped upon it.