3 ms·

Sakamoto must have died with a bitter taste in his mouth, watching the government try to restart the nuclear plants under the pretext of power shortage. He had

Sakamoto must have died with a bitter taste in his mouth, watching the government try to restart the nuclear plants under the pretext of power shortage. He had always been a vocal opponent of nuclear power, a rare voice in a country that seemed to have forgotten the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He had a sharp wit and a playful style, but also a deep sense of justice and compassion. He would have hated to see his beloved country go down this path of self-destruction.

ChadNauseam 4y ago
> He had always been a vocal opponent of nuclear power, a rare voice in a country that seemed to have forgotten the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is the connection between nuclear power and Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Only an artist can draw such strained pictures I guess.
- retrac 4y ago
  Nuclear reactors produce plutonium. A world without any nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities, is a world without nuclear weapons. It's perhaps particularly relevant with Japan; they are the nation probably most often used as an example of a country that could develop nuclear weapons almost overnight, should the political will materialize. They have the know-how, industry, missiles, and because of the nuclear power program, both stockpiles of, and the ability to produce, both enriched uranium and plutonium. Edit: Did I hit a nerve or something folks? For the record I personally strongly support nuclear power. Parent asked a question. It's obvious to me why anti-nuclear activists link weapons and power reactors. It's not (necessarily) lack of scientific understanding -- power reactors produce the material for nuclear bombs. Some people think that is unacceptable as a proliferation risk. Don't shoot the messenger? Was just trying to contribute to the discussion positively.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    ... and so? The death toll due to to nuclear weapons is a small fraction of people killed since them by either small arms or fossil fuel pollution. If one attributes the U.S. stepping back from nuclear power to the anti-proliferation scare of the mid-1970s (good heavens, brown people are making plutonium!) you might then consider the alternate path where the U.S. had stayed the course, built the 500 reactors it had planned to build by 2000, and we'd be talking about some other crisis than the "climate crisis." The constant drumbeat about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is part of a larger syndrome where Japan never reconciled with its neighbors after WWII the way Germany did and now is stuck with a pacifist constitution that seems more of a problem than a solution year after year as that part of the word becomes increasingly dangerous.
    - jfk13 4y ago
      > we'd be talking about some other crisis than the "climate crisis." I doubt that. Perhaps it'd be slightly less acute, that's all.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    While nuclear power came before nuclear weapons, nuclear power was developed with the express purpose of producing weapons (Manhattan Project). Only in the 50s did nuclear power find civilian (i.e. non-violent) application. While nuclear power and weapons use similar technology, their purpose is diametrically opposed.
    - retrac 4y ago
      > Only in the 50s did nuclear power find civilian (i.e. non-violent) application. Many of the early designs like Magnox and RBMK were for producing plutonium first, and power second. Nuclear power was a public relations project more than anything else, at least initially. The UK and Russia continue dual use with their power reactors today. > their purpose is diametrically opposed The purpose is decided by those who control the reactors. For example, the power reactors used in Canada produce plutonium, from natural uranium. Canada built a small heavy water research reactor in India; the material for their first nuclear bomb was made in that reactor. This was expressly not the intent of Canada.
- nwatson 4y ago
  Incidentally ... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dramatic single events that unleashed great destruction, but the results for those cities were not worse than those in other cities in Japan facing bomb firestorms. The nuclear bombs didn't factor much into Japan's eventual surrender. "There is general agreement that the bombing of Nagasaki did little in the way of changing the hearts and minds of the Japanese military. By blaming their surrender on the atomic bombs, Japan avoided the Soviet Union having a hand in the post-war reconstruction process. Japan was afraid that the Soviet Union might try to push a communist regime onto the country. It was also very convenient for the U.S. that Japan attributed their surrender to the atomic bombings." https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/japans-surrender https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/japans-surrend... EDIT: incidentally
shuckles 4y ago
[flagged]
deepzn 4y ago
People and admins here should stop downvoting everything, otherwise it turns into too much of censorship/taboo. I find nothing wrong with this comment, and find it informative. I didn't know this view of Sakamoto, and I'm glad to know it. Here's more information in an interview with Mr.Sakamoto on the topic of Fukushima- https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14222706 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14222706
- efdee 4y ago
  I downvoted because I feel it's abusing Sakamoto's passing for the personal agenda of the poster. This is far from neutral information, especially the way it is presented.
- f0ld 4y ago
  What did you expect from this technocratic hustling website. A downvote is a proof of no counter argument in times like this.

ChadNauseam 4y ago

> He had always been a vocal opponent of nuclear power, a rare voice in a country that seemed to have forgotten the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is the connection between nuclear power and Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Only an artist can draw such strained pictures I guess.
retrac 4y ago
Nuclear reactors produce plutonium. A world without any nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities, is a world without nuclear weapons. It's perhaps particularly relevant with Japan; they are the nation probably most often used as an example of a country that could develop nuclear weapons almost overnight, should the political will materialize. They have the know-how, industry, missiles, and because of the nuclear power program, both stockpiles of, and the ability to produce, both enriched uranium and plutonium. Edit: Did I hit a nerve or something folks? For the record I personally strongly support nuclear power. Parent asked a question. It's obvious to me why anti-nuclear activists link weapons and power reactors. It's not (necessarily) lack of scientific understanding -- power reactors produce the material for nuclear bombs. Some people think that is unacceptable as a proliferation risk. Don't shoot the messenger? Was just trying to contribute to the discussion positively.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  ... and so? The death toll due to to nuclear weapons is a small fraction of people killed since them by either small arms or fossil fuel pollution. If one attributes the U.S. stepping back from nuclear power to the anti-proliferation scare of the mid-1970s (good heavens, brown people are making plutonium!) you might then consider the alternate path where the U.S. had stayed the course, built the 500 reactors it had planned to build by 2000, and we'd be talking about some other crisis than the "climate crisis." The constant drumbeat about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is part of a larger syndrome where Japan never reconciled with its neighbors after WWII the way Germany did and now is stuck with a pacifist constitution that seems more of a problem than a solution year after year as that part of the word becomes increasingly dangerous.
  - jfk13 4y ago
    > we'd be talking about some other crisis than the "climate crisis." I doubt that. Perhaps it'd be slightly less acute, that's all.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  While nuclear power came before nuclear weapons, nuclear power was developed with the express purpose of producing weapons (Manhattan Project). Only in the 50s did nuclear power find civilian (i.e. non-violent) application. While nuclear power and weapons use similar technology, their purpose is diametrically opposed.
  - retrac 4y ago
    > Only in the 50s did nuclear power find civilian (i.e. non-violent) application. Many of the early designs like Magnox and RBMK were for producing plutonium first, and power second. Nuclear power was a public relations project more than anything else, at least initially. The UK and Russia continue dual use with their power reactors today. > their purpose is diametrically opposed The purpose is decided by those who control the reactors. For example, the power reactors used in Canada produce plutonium, from natural uranium. Canada built a small heavy water research reactor in India; the material for their first nuclear bomb was made in that reactor. This was expressly not the intent of Canada.
nwatson 4y ago
Incidentally ... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dramatic single events that unleashed great destruction, but the results for those cities were not worse than those in other cities in Japan facing bomb firestorms. The nuclear bombs didn't factor much into Japan's eventual surrender. "There is general agreement that the bombing of Nagasaki did little in the way of changing the hearts and minds of the Japanese military. By blaming their surrender on the atomic bombs, Japan avoided the Soviet Union having a hand in the post-war reconstruction process. Japan was afraid that the Soviet Union might try to push a communist regime onto the country. It was also very convenient for the U.S. that Japan attributed their surrender to the atomic bombings." https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/japans-surrender https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/japans-surrend... EDIT: incidentally

shuckles 4y ago

[flagged]

deepzn 4y ago

People and admins here should stop downvoting everything, otherwise it turns into too much of censorship/taboo. I find nothing wrong with this comment, and find it informative. I didn't know this view of Sakamoto, and I'm glad to know it. Here's more information in an interview with Mr.Sakamoto on the topic of Fukushima- https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14222706 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14222706

efdee 4y ago
I downvoted because I feel it's abusing Sakamoto's passing for the personal agenda of the poster. This is far from neutral information, especially the way it is presented.
f0ld 4y ago
What did you expect from this technocratic hustling website. A downvote is a proof of no counter argument in times like this.