share interactive transcript request transcript/captions live captions
download
|
MyPlaylist
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. [INAUDIBLE] I'm Hirokazu Miyazaki, Director of the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies and also a Professor of Anthropology at Cornell. I'd like to welcome you all to the same event at US cities, equal cities for faith, and hope, and knowledge, interfaith dialogue for global justice and peace. And since joining, I hope that [INAUDIBLE] and for [INAUDIBLE] as well. And it's, of course, a cutting and experimental program to foster conversation across a wide spectrum of members of the community about the relationship between the [INAUDIBLE]
Our plan is about [INAUDIBLE] the global issues [INAUDIBLE] issues of [INAUDIBLE] from peace and justice. And today, we have special guests, such a delegation of people from Nagasaki, Japan. And we have a special speaker from Nagasaki to address issues that are particularly [INAUDIBLE] that is issues related to nuclear weapons and global peace [INAUDIBLE].
And when the steering committee of this initiative met a couple months ago, we decided to choose peace as the focal theme, organizing these for this semester. And probably because of the developing-- then developing issues surrounding North Korea. And this particular event was organized essentially to address [INAUDIBLE] And I hope that today's presentation, conversation will realize insights, valuable insights, into how to think about the current threats and current situations. So [INAUDIBLE]
Before I introduce the speaker, I'd like to ask Dan McMullin, who is the Director of Cornell United Religious Work and also let's just say Dean for StudentsA focusing on spirituality and [INAUDIBLE].
DAN MCMULLIN: Thank you very much, [INAUDIBLE].
[APPLAUSE]
Let me offer my welcome as well to you for this second in the series of collaborative conversations. At a time when civility seems to be rather slipping away from our national and international dialogue, this opportunity for engagements among students, among faculty, among chaplains, about serious matters that need both academic and a religious perspective is a marvelous opportunity. So I am grateful that you've come here to be a part of this conversation, hoping that you will come again as this collaboration unfolds in ways yet to be determined.
From my own tradition, I would just like to say that the British Cardinal John Henry Newman talked about the fact that friendship is a high ideal among human persons. And friendship is developed, as he says, "cor ad cor loquitur." hearts speaking to other hearts.
So at least from my perspective as a religious leader here on this campus, I hope that we touch our hearts in these conversations. And that you feel able to let your heart be opened even a bit more, to share what you know, what you believe, and what you hope with others, whose hearts are being opened as well by these conversations.
So Mr. Ihara's presence here this afternoon, as well as the delegation that came with him, we're grateful for your presence here because we and I it's believe it's a sweet and vitality necessity for our hearts to speak to each other. And thank you once again for your presence here. So I'll leave you with that.
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: Thank you, Dan. So I'd just like to point out in the front row [INAUDIBLE]. And it's a nine-person delegation from Nagasaki. I have known them for a year or so. And I've learned so much from them about what is peace all about. And the main thing I learned is that peace is not really an abstract idea. But it's really about really working together, to search for that means, peace means.
And they are examples of-- well, they are all-- each an accomplished person that has dedicated [INAUDIBLE]. And [INAUDIBLE] to conquer, but also work together with a wide spectrum of citizens in Nagasaki and elsewhere. I can talk more about the activities later. But I'd just to acknowledge their presence. And please join me welcoming them.
[APPLAUSE]
So I'd like to introduce-- it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Toyokazu Ihara. He is atomic bomb survivor from Nagasaki. And he [INAUDIBLE] for a long period of time for a union of workers in China, the nuclear power industry in [INAUDIBLE] And then he joined a socialist body. And then he was elected to the Nagasaki City Council in the mid-'80s. And he was reelected six times. [INAUDIBLE] He was a very popular and special counsel member. You can [INAUDIBLE] Nagasaki consequential fashion.
And he's been also very active in Nagasaki's [INAUDIBLE] interfaith initiative of peace. And this initiative is interesting because it's spearheaded by the Catholic Church, which has a very long tradition in Nagasaki since the 16th century-- 17th century. But also the Shinto shrine originally set out to persecuted Christians. So now those forces are working together [INAUDIBLE] Nagasaki and to create a [INAUDIBLE] for continued peace practice.
And as you fully known, Nagasaki's peace activism is very international. The fact that they are here is nothing new. They have been doing this for many, many years. And [INAUDIBLE] and also have been inspired by the dedication to this cause. And [INAUDIBLE] is very important. And I am looking forward to learning from today's conversation.
So just a brief note. So today's lecture will be delivered in Japanese. And the English translation will be projected on the screen. And in the Q&A session, we have to ask some of you in the audience who speak both languages to help me navigate the [INAUDIBLE] multi-language situation. So [INAUDIBLE] translation. So please help me out. That would be great.
And also Mr. Ihara has brought two letters, very special letters, from the mayor of Nagasaki [INAUDIBLE] And one letter is to our president, the president [INAUDIBLE] And the other letter is to the mayor of [INAUDIBLE] And so I think we'll have the opportunity to learn about the contents of these letters at the beginning [INAUDIBLE] lecture. But without further ado, I'd like to ask you to help me welcome Mr. Ihara.
[APPLAUSE]
TOYOKAZU IHARA: Thank you for coming today. My name is Toyokazu Ihara. Toyokazu means Oriental Number One.
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
Thank you.
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
Nagasaki must be the last. Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]
[APPLAUSE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: Thank you. We have brought some gifts for our President and our Mayor. And here is a few things.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
[BELL RINGS]
[APPLAUSE]
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: This is evident in the dove.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
YUKI MIYAMOTO: The second is an Origami crane for in prayers, [JAPANESE]. So I will make sure to deliver these to our President and Mayor also. So thank you very much. I'm so very honored. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
YUKI MIYAMOTO: This is an application form to join d
[LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE]
So please, take some pressure off. And I'd like to introduce our other guest, Dr. Yuki Miyamoto from DePaul University at Chicago. She teaches Ethics in the Department of Religious Studies at DePaul.
She is the author of Beyond Mushroom Cloud-- Commemoration, Religion, and Responsibility After Hiroshima. And some time ago I had an opportunity to read this book.
And I was quite inspired by Yuki. It's a really kind of rare analysis of religious and spiritual dimensions of the experiences of of that with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I invite her to put, obviously her presentation in the context of peace activism in today's world.
[APPLAUSE]
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today. And I appreciate Professor Miyazaki for inviting me here.
What I would like to do today is I hope to put Mr. Ihara's testimony into a historical context. And thereby, I would also like to challenge the national narrative of the atomic bombings, both in the United States and in Japan, as well as the subsequent Cold War framework. And I also would like to get to what is at stake if we don't.
And it touches upon the global hibakusha, which Mr. Ihara already is working on it, it seems like, from his presentation. And I only have 15 minutes or so, and we will see. But if the time permits, I would also like to talk about North Korea's threat. How could we think about North Korea's threat in this historical context, or in the nuclear discourse?
So let me begin with the national narrative. The atomic bombings in 1945 has been often understood as either retaliation of the Pearl Harbor. But this might be a little bit obsolete. I don't hear this much from my students anymore.
And especially, the Manhattan Project, that the budget was passed a day before the Pearl Harbor attack. The second one, which is probably much more prevalent, both in the United States and in Japan, is that the bomb ended the war quickly; and thereby, saved American lives as well as the Japanese lives.
And numerous scholars have already challenged this sort of national discourse. For example, Barton Bernstein, his article "A Postwar Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved," He is discussing, in this article, how the number increased as we receive the information of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So there is the number inflation going on, which was not necessarily based upon the facts. Another one is Adam Goodheart, in the same edited volume. The article entitled, "The Invasion That Never Was."
And interestingly, he is calling into question this framework, which we are probably familiar with, either dropping the bomb or invading the Japan proper, Archipelago. And often the case, it seems like we were presented two evils, and we were forced to choose this lesser evil.
However, he is not making a direct connections. However, what he is insinuating there, in his article, is that. Well, because Operation Olympic, which is the plan to invade Japan, was not actually seriously discussed in the military.
And therefore, there might have been the third way, or maybe fourth or fifth, other options. And by that time, Japan was already crumbling down. and in the midst of the negotiation to end the war. And then the US, or the Allied powers, after brutal battles, have already taken Okinawa and other islands.
So they could have stayed there, just wait there to see Japan just tumbling down. So that could be. But yet, the question for us is why we buy into this framework, either/or? And what does that do to us?
And of course, Japanese national narrative, up until the '90s, talking about the atomic bombing, is often considered as something that "lefties" do. And it seems to me that it has coincided with the death of the Showa Emporer, that finally we can talk about the atomic bombing. Because talking about the atomic bombing also leads us to the discussion of war responsibility. So talking about the war responsibility, especially on the emperor, was long taboo, and perhaps still is.
So therefore, after that, for example, prime ministers come to Japan-- excuse me, coming to Hiroshima and Nagasaki every summer. It has been ritualized, but it was not like that all the time, always. In the '70s, there were two prime ministers visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But it was not ritualized like we do now in Japan, they do now in Japan.
And especially focusing and emphasizing the victimhood also serves their purpose. And d was also talking about Japanese atrocities and war crimes, focusing and highlighting the victimhood would help them not to face that responsibility of their war crimes. So in that sense, the national narrative works and serves the purpose. And then we can see what the purposes are.
And then between 1954 and 1949, the theologians and the other scientists physics-- physics-- physicists were wondering how we should think of the atomic bombing. And the discourse was rather ambiguous, which drastically changed in 1949, when the Soviet Union succeeded the atomic bomb test. And then arms race began.
If you have time-- I don't play this, but there is a wonderful video which is eerie, but at the same time, very mesmerizing, nuclear bomb tests made by the images, made by Isamu Hasimoto. So if you Google Isamu Hashimoto and nuclear, then you will probably get to this video. It's only 15 minutes.
And there, now, the enemy has it. So the nuclear weaponry, of itself, is not necessarily an evil. It's neutral. the moral worth depends on who possesses it, and how to use it.
So it seems like there is a change in the discourse. And as Mr. Ihara was telling us, there are nuclear arsenals across the world. So there are way too many. We can destroy the whole world, entire world many times. And also, nuclear tests, which Mr. Ihara introduced us.
So far, eight countries have officially tested. I'm not, here, including Israel. But other than that, eight countries officially tested or officially proven that they have tested or conducted nuclear tests.
So for example, Pakistan. We often hear and we fear Pakistan. Because it's "Islamic country," the only Islamic country which has nuclear weapons. But they only had one nuclear test, in 1998.
And India, it's also a nuclear country. But they only did twice, in 1974. The second time was actually 1998, only two weeks apart between Pakistan's nuclear test. So now we've got two countries down, six to go. Would you like to take a wild guess, what's the next country? Or how many? Oh, yes?
AUDIENCE: Russia, China, France, that I can think of. China?
YUKI MIYAMOTO: OK, OK. China, Russia, France.
AUDIENCE: Yes. United States, China.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: United States.
AUDIENCE: United Kingdom.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: The UK.
AUDIENCE: Russia.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Russia.
AUDIENCE: France.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: France.
AUDIENCE: Missing one.
AUDIENCE: North Korea.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: North Korea, thank you. I feel like I'm, repeating myself.
AUDIENCE: Also, South Africa had the use, but then it just dismantled them later.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Right. And then that was not necessarily a moral reason, which is kind of disappointing. But thank you, yes. Thank you, that's very good.
Yes, North Korea, as Mr. Ihara was saying, six nuclear tests. So five more. So five, all those countries, do you want to take a wild guess how many?
Which country, how many? Anyone? I'm feeling a little bit time conscious here-- The next one is actually China.
How many would you say? 42. And next is the UK, which is also 43. And we got five countries down. So now, three more to go.
AUDIENCE: France.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: France. How many would you say?
AUDIENCE: 60.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: 60. Yeah, we wish. France, 212. And two more. That would be easier, right? Right. Soviet Union, which is how many?
AUDIENCE: 500?
YUKI MIYAMOTO: 714. And--
[IMITATES DRUM ROLL]
The US, So our country, right?
AUDIENCE: France?
AUDIENCE: No, US.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: And how many?
AUDIENCE: Over 2,000.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: The US. Not that many, phew.
[LAUGHTER]
It's only 1,032.
AUDIENCE: How about Israel?
YUKI MIYAMOTO: No, I didn't include it. I didn't include it. Part of the reasons is that I was not able to get the data. And often, most of the-- most of these numbers came from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists research. But thank you for asking, yes.
And so it seems like there is a huge discrepancy, that we are so afraid of other countries nuclear weapons. And North Korea, by no means I downplay the six-times nuclear tests done by North Korea. By no means.
However, this discrepancy that we don't even know how many times we have done, and this huge number seems to be a little bit alarming to me. Well, more than a little alarming to me. And so that's why I wanted to share. And then this also has to do with the national narrative, how we have understood the atomic bombing.
Because it saved us. And it still continued to protect us. So I would like to show, actually, how it's protecting us after 1,032 tests.
So nuclear test sites. As you can see, the Marshall Islands, which is right here, Marshall Islands. And some of the tests are done in, of course, Nevada, New Mexico. But Missouri, Alaska, and California.
But among those, I would like to draw your attention, 67 nuclear tests-- this is atmospheric tests-- were conducted in the Marshall Islands while Marshall Islands were still a territory of the US. The Marshall Islands became independent in 1986. But those tests were done in the '40s, right after, like, in '46 through '50s.
And then there is recently a declassified document called the Project 4.1. In there, there is a sentence. It reads, "They are more like us than mice." And 91% of the Marshall Islanders, even though they evacuated once, and then they returned after the tests, but they were falling into acute radiation sickness.
So they evacuated again. Some of them migrated to Hawaii. But it's more like diaspora, because of those tests. And also, Nagasaki bomb was made in Hanford, Washington State.
And this site, it is said that this was the most contaminated area in the world, because of the residue and nuclear waste. So a handful of the health issues. Just, I would like to draw your attention to, in red letters, 208 million liters, which is 55 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste in 177 underground tanks, which is leaking. And just recently, there was a tunnel collapsed, the tunnel which those tanks were buried. So it's a dire situation there.
And those are Hiroshima bomb, the uranium was enriched in St. Louis, which is not much known. Partly because after the national facility enriched the uranium, that was sold to private companies, which was also sold to another private companies. And which was also sold another, another, another. So the liability is very ambiguous and obscured because of that.
But St. Louis, it was 72 years ago, right? But the nuclear waste accumulated. And people didn't know the history of the community. And so lots of suffering right now, among the citizens, younger ones as well.
So given that, it seems a little bit insensitive to talk about mutually-assured destruction, or nuclear deterrence. And I would like to call into question where that kind of rhetoric, that kind of discourse came into being. And how does that serve? Or who does that serve?
Who is actually protected? So either contaminated sites, and perhaps the closest, even though it's not that close, is perhaps the farther bullet point. That's at Brookhaven National Lab So interestingly, after the Millennium, female writers started talking about their upbringings, how actually, in retrospect, how their upbringings, how their childhood were, in a way, "tarnished" by the contaminated land.
So that's why I'm talking about this. It's because I don't want Mr. Ihara's experiences and activities to be considered as something like, that happened 72 years ago, far away, somewhere in a little island in the east. Which probably is very dangerous. And I would like to call into question the framework of the nuclear discourse.
And hopefully, that we can work together with Mr. Ihara. So I guess it's been 15 minutes. I can go on a little bit? Thank you.
So the North Korean missile flew over Japan. So you can see, five and six, where they flew over. But at the same time, I don't know if this is clear enough. But those pink areas are the prefectures. It's like states in the United States.
And it also says how many square miles the US bases occupy. So therefore, it's in Japanese airspace. But the control is not held by the Japanese government, but the US government. So the commercial air flight often go around.
So that's why it seems like it's almost avoiding those bases. But more importantly, if the Japanese government-- so let me go back to this. When the North Korean missiles, especially the last two occasions, in August and September, the Japanese government issued this J-Alert.
And so everyone was receiving this alert through their cell phones. And I wonder if the Japanese government was taking their threat seriously, even though they very much want the subject or the citizens to fear. Like for example, as you can see, the Korean peninsula is very close.
And also the Pyongyang and the missile test site is so close. But then, Japanese government, as Mr. Ihara was saying, trying to restart all nuclear power plants. And it's so close. Yet, they are not trying to get rid of it, but restart it. And how easy it would be for North Korea, to just toss a missile and you know, aim it-- aim at-- aim at one of those nuclear power plants. And if-- a couple of those would be sufficient to destroy the entire country.
So there is another discrepancy between the Japanese government. And the Japanese government want the citizens to think about. And then that probably corresponds to what Mr. Ihara was talking about, how the government actually want to re-militarize Japan again.
So Broken Arrows, I want to talk a little bit about this. Since 1950, we have many tests. But also, there are Broken Arrow situations. So I just list a couple in 1950s, how many bombs we have lost, and how many bombs we have not yet retrieved.
And this is 1960s. And especially the last bullet point, this Spain, the two, we actually dropped four, and then two got detonated, and severely contaminated the area. Fortunately, that was not a residential area. But still, decontamination work is still going on.
But the problem is, there's 1,400 tons of contaminated soil. Even though you removed it, where would you put that? So the decontamination is actually -contamination. You are just passing it to somewhere. So that's the serious issues. And especially the plutonium, half life is 24,000 years.
OK, then coming back to my game plan for today is this. So the steak is while we are not really seeing our own, hibakusha, well we're owned. And thereby, we are actually that the risk is ourselves. And so I wanted to call into question this idea of nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons protecting us. And I think that's all. Thank you for listening. Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
AUDIENCE: Hi, my name is [? Hiroshi ?] [? Asada. ?] My wife, [? Stormy, ?] and I, drove 5 and 1/2 hours from Connecticut to see you. Mr. Ihara, Mr. Ihara's son and my wife were high school friends. So thank you for having us. The-- my question is, the idea of you know, owning nuclear weapons, or any armed forces as a deterrent of war.
So you know, if you have-- you have nuclear power. And others have nuclear power. Others probably don't, you know, think twice before they drop bombs. So this idea of owning nuclear power as a deterrent, and I'd like to hear your take on that notion. So
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: The idea is kind of to this effect.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: Risks are involved in the possession of nuclear weapons. You almost now have to think of the potential uses for terrorist acts.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: So the objective for during the whole time of President Obama's innovation not to use nuclear weapons as a tool to attack first. What is the first--
AUDIENCE: First use.
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: First Use. But I think the Japanese government still ostensibly and explicitly is using nuclear umbrellas as part of their National [INAUDIBLE] Policy. So the government is actually exerting their potential against that notion that President Obama request at that time.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: However, there is a possibility that the nuclear weapons are owned by the state. And also, the investigation team that just after the bombing expressed the possibility, perhaps, that this should never have been used. And that was what he said. But I think what he is stressing is that the various governments and all nuclear weapons are facing all kinds of risks, in simply possessing them.
But at the same time, it's possible that nuclear weapons are only might be staying up through happenstance, and that's--
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: So if we still pursued the idea of deterrent, perhaps every single country should possess nuclear weapons or atomic missiles.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: The very first study published in the United States-- the United Nations made was to remove look at abolishing nuclear weapons. But that hasn't materialized. And so we firmly believe that the idea of deterrent is not comparable to death.
AUDIENCE: Hi. I had a question for Mr. Ihara. I was wondering what sort of distinctions he sees between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation? Because you know, some of the concerns about nuclear weapons are that terrorists can get their hands on them, or there can be accidents.
But if there is non-proliferation, that means that more countries, some which might be unstable, wouldn't get them. But you know, really powerful countries like, you know, the United States or Russia or great powers, might still possess them. And if only really powerful countries possess nuclear weapons, would that not hopefully prevent, you know, building the turns, would that not hopefully prevent another World War?
Because you know, before the sort of modern era, world wars and great wars were very common. They caused unimaginable suffering as well. There are entire areas of France that are still uninhabitable because of World War I.
And I was wondering, is there a distinction between nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation? And if there is, and there is at least some semblance of a deterrent if only really powerful countries have nuclear weapons, what would the right balance be between having them prevent a war of where conventional weapons causes inimaginable suffering, versus the risk of having them, themselves unleash unimaginable suffering? And also, what do technologies like missile shields or anti-missiles that can shoot down missiles have? Yeah, sorry, that was a long one.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
YUKI MIYAMOTO: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
I think nuclear nonproliferation is very insufficient. And it's because right now, there are nine countries that have nuclear weapons. But basically, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, those five are the ones leading the nuclear disarmament.
But they, themselves, promised that they would do the same. But they have not done that yet. And ironically, because of nonproliferation treaty, actually, nuclear weapons was spreading. That's what I am afraid of and that's what I'm seeing.
And for example, North Korea. North Korea is being blamed by those five countries and the others, the countries which have nuclear weapons. However, they, themselves, have not kept their promise.
And in Japan, for example, we have 54 nuclear power plants. And if something happens to one of those, then it would end the country. So I don't think the nuclear nonproliferation is working. And let me ask two other questions that you posed.
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
But I guess by saying that I think he also addresses your second question. So is that OK?
SPEAKER 1: Let's not.
TOYOKAZU IHARA: Yeah, I guess let's move on.
SPEAKER 2: That's the final question.
AUDIENCE: Hi, [? I'm Didi. ?] This isn't really a question about the technicalities of what you feel about anything, but more how I want to know what you think the rule of religion is and if any of these conflicts
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Well, what--
AUDIENCE: Religion.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Oh, religion. OK. Professor Ihara?
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
YUKI MIYAMOTO: OK.
[SPEAKING JAPANESE]
TOYOKAZU IHARA: [SPEAKING JAPANESE]
YUKI MIYAMOTO: Oh, OK, I have my microphone here. So Catholics, in Japanese Buddhism, actually regretfully, they helped the war efforts during the World War II. So because of that, they regretted it and then repented it.
And they are promoting ecumenical movement in Nagasaki as well, those different religious traditions have been working together for 45 years by now. And then they are having this inter-religious relations. And I think what I hear is that Islam means peace. And I think that the two essence of religion is aiming for peace.
So it seems like as if the war was breaking out, or the war was happening, it's because of religion. But I think it's not-- it's not the-- that's not the case. So that's how religion can contribute to peace.
HIROKAZU MIYAZAKI: Thank you. For helping out a friend. So it's already six o'clock. So I would just like to thank you, again, for coming.
And I'd like to also mention that there will be one more event later in this series. It is a dialogue that's called "Global Justice and Peace." So please stay tuned. And I also would like us to thank Mr. Ihara for traveling all the way from Nagasaki to us.
[APPLAUSE]
Toyokazu Ihara delivered a public lecture titled "No More Nagasakis: Interfaith Action Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons," followed by discussion by Yuki Miyamoto on Thursday, September 28, 2017 in 120 Physical Sciences Building.
Toyokazu Ihara was a child when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on his home city of Nagasaki in August 1945. His mother, sister, and two brothers died of radiation exposure after participating in rescue work. Ihara went on to become a union organizer, a longtime Nagasaki city council member, president of a major survivors' organization, and an active member of a 45-year-old group of leaders of local Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist and Shinto religious organizations. Ihara was in the United States as a Special Communicator for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, an official designation granted by Japan's ministry of foreign affairs.
Yuki Miyamoto, author of the book Beyond the Mushroom Cloud: Commemoration, Religion, and Responsibility after Hiroshima, has been designated a Peace Correspondent by the mayor of Nagasaki.
