Fukushima and atomic bombs
This letter is in response to articles about the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan and the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
According to the articles: “The unfolding disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant follows decades of falsified safety reports, fatal accidents and underestimated earthquake risk in Japan’s atomic power industry.”
Where have people heard this before? It never fails to amaze me that change always has to be the result of catastrophe. Whether it be Hurricane Katrina, the Indonesian tsunami or the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, no government officials are ever held accountable for what can only be described as criminal negligence.
It is somewhat satisfying to see that three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company are set to face trial. The same needs to happen in the US, especially as it pertains to the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008.
In his 1762 treatise The Social Contract, philosopher, writer and composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that “individuals unite into a society by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by certain rules and to accept duties to protect one another from violence, fraud, or negligence.”
Hence the existence of government with its number one priority being the protection of its citizens.
Sadly, this is happening less and less to the point where governments are compromising, and hence forfeiting, the right to govern. The question for Japanese is: Did your government fail to act in your best interests or was it compromised by self-interest? Why must it be accepted that this is “business as usual” and “the way things are done”? When did governing stop including responsibility as a part of its makeup? Perhaps Japanese need to re-examine the character, or lack thereof, of its governing officials and put systems in place that prevent this type of negligence from continuing to occur.
It is obvious from revolutions sweeping the Arab nations that leaders chose to squeeze everything they could from their citizens until it was too late.
Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must all be executed — like former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi — for crimes against humanity. Japan, now it is your turn to make change. Enough with FUK-U-SHIMA.
As for the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, it was fully justified. Japanese had become so barbaric in nature that only a Sodom and Gomorrah type blast could shake Emperor Hirohito to order the military to surrender.
After Nagasaki, the next target was Tokyo.
Hirohito spoke wisely when he said: “If we don’t surrender now, they [the US] will obliterate us from the Earth.”
According to Wikipedia, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara is “a 2003 US documentary film about the life and times of former US secretary of defense Robert McNamara, illustrating his observations of the nature of modern warfare.”
In that documentary, McNamara says that the wood supporting Japanese pagoda homes was so dry that when the US Army Air Corps dropped incendiary bombs, the fires were so great that far more Japanese died than from the two atomic bombs combined.
Further, it is clear from reading Japanese history that the people did not object to the mass invasions, pillaging, murders and rapes of those in China, Korea and the Philippines, among other places. Those same people would not have been crying for the citizens of the US had they developed the bomb first and dropped it on New York — and yes, they most certainly would have. Those same people thought nothing of the US prisoners of war who were tortured so badly to see how long it would take them to die from the pain inflicted.
Yes, former US president Harry Truman made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb to defeat an evil menace that had become out of control.
Japanese should be grateful that their military was defeated and their country was not exterminated from the Earth. The Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster clearly illustrates that Japan has no real interest in protecting its people from nuclear radiation. Not much has changed in 70 years, has it?
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on