�����������������������

������������������������������������������������

1. Desperate Battleﬁeld
On February 14, 1947, 34 remnants of a defeated Japanese troop
unit surrendered to the Philippine Army after having been on the run in
the jungles of Mindanao Island, the Philippines, for almost a year and ahalf after the end of World War II. In May 1945, U.S. forces had landedin the Cagayan area and driven the remnants to retreat into themountainous area, including jungles and valleys. The retreat was sosevere that it deprived the remnants of many lives. Although they had
opportunities to surrender, the unit commander regarded thesurrender-recommendation fliers distributed by the U.S. forces as anenemy trap to lure them out. Moreover, the unit commander believed thatsurrender was a shame to soldiers, saying: “We must never surrender.” Hegave the troops serving under him no choice but to continue their retreat.
Some soldiers who tried to desert were shot. Others who could notcontinue retreating due to illness or injury chose to commit suicide withhand grenades. Moving from one bivouac to another, hiding from their“enemies,” their stockpile of rations running out, many soldiers diedmiserably of starvation. The Japanese military took food supply lightly
and prohibited their soldiers from surrendering, which affected soldierson the front line terribly, resulting in a wide variety of tragedies.
To survive, the starving remnants ate whatever they could, including
weeds and mice. It was truly a “Desperate Battlefield.” Living on the vergeof starvation, the holdouts lost their humanity to such an extent that they
did what was described in Fires on the Plain, a novel written by Shohei
Ooka. One who survived the death jungle was Army Surgeon A, a firstlieutenant, who had been drafted right after completing a private university
medical course in September 1943 (the word “surgeon” in Japan refers toa military doctor).
2. Death Sentence
The remnants, including Surgeon A, were on the run for a year and ahalf. During this time, some of them engaged in repeated assaults on local
residents in the Province of Bukidnon, Mindanao Island, causing morethan 70 deaths. If they had accepted the end of the war a year and a halfearlier, as many other Japanese soldiers had, the residents of Bukidnon
and the holdouts themselves would have been spared tremendous
suffering. In this sense, their surrender was “too late” and a truly
deplorable tragedy for both sides.
Bukidnon residents who narrowly escaped the assaults reported
torture, murder and sexual assault. Moreover, the Philippine Army
discovered human bones and obtained other evidence that the remnants
had practiced cannibalism. The connection between the 34 soldiers who
surrendered and the terrible incidents reported attracted attention fromthe investigating authorities, resulting in the decision to subject theremnants to a war crimes trial.

CONTENTS
A Soul in Sad Exile–Never-ending War of a Japanese Army Surgeon
by Hitoshi Nagai …………………………………………………………………… 1~2
Series: Reflections from Hiroshima
The Spirit of Hiroshima: Practicing What One Preaches by Takashi Hiraoka …… 2~3
Concealed Atomic Bomb Material in the U.S. by Hiroko Takahashi ……………… 4~5“Real Dangers” of Nuclear Weapons Unseen by Kazumi Mizumoto………………… 5
Research Projects
An Exploration of the Atomic Bomb and Nuclear War in Art and Popular Culture
in Japan and the United States ……………………………………………………… 6
Politics of Regret: Collective Memory in Northeast Asia…………………………… 6
Bombing and the Civilian: A Twentieth Century History…………………………… 7
Forthcoming HPI Research Forums:
How to Memorialize War for Peace ………………………………………………… 7
What Do Americans Think about the Bombing of Hiroshima and Why? ………… 7
Forthcoming International Symposium:
Life Out of Death: Bringing Hibakushas’ Lessons into the 21st Century ………… 8
Diary ………………………………………………………………………………… 8

The trial began on July 6, 1949, at the Philippine militarycommission located near Manila City Hall. At the trial, 18 remnants wereprosecuted on charges of atrocities toward local residents on Mindanao
Island following the end of the war. According to the indictment, Surgeon
A and four other soldiers were charged with involvement in an atrocity
suspected to have occurred in Bukidnon in September 1946. On
September 20, 1949, of the 18 accused, 10, including Surgeon A, weresentenced to death by hanging and four to life imprisonment at hard labor.
Three were acquitted. The prosecution of the remaining one was later
rejected. Surgeon A was then 31 years old. His mother, upon hearing that
her son had received a death sentence, fainted and later became ill.
3. Surviving in Muntinlupa
Japanese war crimes trials conducted by the Philippine Armycontinued from August 1947 to December 1949. The defendants were tried
by Filipino judges mainly for murders and atrocities against Filipino
civilians during the war. During the trial period of about two and a halfyears, approximately 150 persons were prosecuted (a total of 73 war crimes
cases were tried), and 90% were declared guilty, including 79 sentenced todeath and 31 to life imprisonment. Thus, the trials resulted in very severe
outcomes for the Japanese defendants. After sentencing, they served theirterms in the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa, a suburb of Manila.
Although Surgeon A was at first devastated by the death sentence, hebelieved that “I will absolutely be saved from death.” In his prison cell, he
studied English, German and Spanish as well as medicine. He tried to “takelife one day at a time.” He comforted himself by painting with water-colors
and playing baseball under the Southern Cross. He was emotionally
supported by his Christian faith, which he developed when he wasdevastated soon after surrendering to the Philippine Army (he was baptizedat a church in Iligan City at the end of August 1948). His encounter with
Christianity offered him opportunities to reflect on the people of thePhilippines, who had experienced enormous losses and suffering at thehands of the Japanese forces. When he took off the “spiritual armor” of theJapanese forces and regained the human emotions he had lost during thewar, he realized that “it was not my will to join the war, but I am a memberof the system called Japan and I can never be relieved of my guilt.”
From late at night on January 19, 1951 to early the next morning, 14Japanese war criminals, including 13 of the so-called Nakamura Case (thecriminals in the case were sentenced to death for atrocities in Medellin, Cebu
Island) were suddenly executed. The mass executions had a great impact on
the remaining 60 or so war criminals on death row, since there had been no
executions for more than a year and it was assumed in both the Philippines
and Japan that a peace treaty would soon be concluded. A diary entry dated
January 24, 1951, by a former second lieutenant sentenced to death fully
conveys the despair of the condemned. “The sentences in the Nakamura
Case were highly likely to be commuted. Now that they have been executed,
I’m sure that the rest of us on death row have almost no hope.”
Right after the executions, the remaining criminals began to write
their wills. Every time darkness set in, they showered and changed into
newly washed underwear in preparation for their executions. They
struggled to accept their destiny, believing that “the death penalty may be
executed tomorrow.” Surgeon A was quite depressed, thinking: “We, thewar criminals here, have been abandoned by the Emperor and our country.
Why did they send us here? Japan is regaining its prosperity, forgetting
about us and paying no attention to our suffering.” On the other hand,
every time the morning sunlight streamed in through the iron-barred
window of his cell, he secretly felt joy that “I can live another day.” Theconvicts sometimes received letters from family and friends in Japan, andreceived some Japanese visitors, such as Hamako Watanabe, a singer. The
war criminals, continually living in the shadow of death and engulfed byloneliness, were truly encouraged and relieved by such letters and visitors.
In Japan, Surgeon A’s father and friends were working desperately torequest that his life be spared.
Continued on Page 2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

−1−

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

＜Series: Reflections from Hiroshima＞

The 2nd

Takashi Hiraoka, former mayor of Hiroshima

The Spirit of Hiroshima:Practicing What One Preaches

Interview by Motofumi Asai

Mr. Takashi Hiraoka played an instrumentalrole in establishing the Hiroshima Peace
Institute during his mayoralty ofHiroshima. Even after leaving office, he
has actively voiced his opinions on thesituations in Japan and Hiroshima, andhas engaged in grassroots activities,
making it a principle to practice what hepreaches. Motofumi Asai, President of
HPI, interviewed Mr. Hiraoka, but due tospace limitations we cannot transcribe the complete interview.
For a full understanding of Mr. Hiraoka’s ideas, kindly refer tohis publications, including the books, articles and the column:-Henken to Sabetsu [Prejudice and Discrimination], Mirai-sha-Muen no Kaikyo [Neglected Strait], Kage Shobo-Kibo no Hiroshima [Hiroshima, with Hope for Peace], Iwanami
Shoten-“ Sixty Years Since Atomic Bombing and Responsibility of
Journalism,” Shimbun Kenkyu [Study of Newspapers], August
2005, Nihon Shinbun Kyokai-“My Perspective on Peace̶In Regard to Hiroshima,” Hiroshima

kara Sekai no Heiwa ni tsuite Kangaeru [Thinking about
World Peace from Hiroshima], Gendai Shiryo Shuppan-“ Significance of Preserving the Atomic Bomb Dome,” The
Mainichi Newspapers, April 27, 2006
1. Japanʼs Responsibility as Victimizer- A-bomb Victims in South Korea
I once stated: “To acknowledge the wretchedness of Korean
atomic bomb victims is to realize Japan’s responsibility for what
it did in the past. Assuming that the Japanese colonial rule of
Korea marked the beginning of the spiritual decline of theJapanese people, overlooking the suffering of A-bomb survivors
in South Korea would mean turning a blind eye to our own
current decadence.” In short, the issue of A-bomb survivors inSouth Korea reflects the ideological decadence of Japan, theJapanese people and Hiroshima.
In November 1965, I visited South Korea for the first timeto interview nine A-bomb victims in Seoul and Pusan. After
returning to Japan, I began to seek ways to realize solidarity with
South Korean A-bomb survivors. However, few people joined
me in that effort, owing to the existence of the military

A Soul in Sad Exile ― Never-ending War of a Japanese Army Surgeon
Negotiations on compensation to be paid by Japan to the Philippines
reached a deadlock, and a peace treaty between the two nations wasdelayed. In July 1953, however, President Elpidio Quirino of thePhilippines pardoned all the Japanese war criminals, including thosesentenced to death, and permitted their return to Japan (death sentenceswere commuted to life imprisonment, while many criminals were released
with special pardons, including some sentenced to life imprisonment). On
July 22, the 108 war criminals arrived at the Port of Yokohama on the
Hakusan-maru. The criminals to be released, who had been sentenced tolife imprisonment or less, upon their arrival at Yokohama went straight toa welcome-back party co-hosted by Kanagawa Prefecture and Yokohama
City. In contrast, 56 condemned criminals, including Surgeon A, whose
sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment, were placed in
Sugamo Prison in Tokyo. Thanks in part to tough diplomatic negotiations
behind the scene, on December 28, 1953, President Quirino signed special
pardons for the formerly condemned criminals imprisoned at Sugamo. On
December 30, those criminals, including Surgeon A, were finally set free.
4. With the Past Fading Away
In the spring of 1955, former President Quirino came to Japan toreceive medical treatment. When Surgeon A and his wife visited him at
the Imperial Hotel, Quirino said “I would like to thank God, who offeredme the opportunity to give you the rest of your life.” Moved by thatstatement, Surgeon A devoted his life to the study of medicine and toregaining the 10 years he lost in the Philippines. To further cultivate his
medical knowledge, he worked at his university’s hospital and at his
father’s hospital. He later pursued his studies at a local college, where hereceived a Doctorate in Medical Science. As seen in the title “Japan is nolonger in the post-war period” (The Economic White Paper, July 1956),
much of the Japanese public believed by 1956 that the nation’s postwar
recovery had been completed, with war memories gradually fading away.
However, this did not apply to Surgeon A, whose anguish remained withhim always.
His wife said that his everyday life was a mixture of “light andshadow.” He spent busy days taking care of his patients, which made him
temporarily forget the horrible scenes of the last battlefield agonies. At
night, however, his mind kept flashing back to those horrible scenes,
depriving him of sleep for many days. The horrendous scenes were
imprinted on his mind: the sounds he heard when his friends hesitantly
committed suicide with hand grenades, the imploring eyes of a Filipino

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

child asking his help before being killed by Japanese soldiers. He
continuously suffered pangs of conscience for having become involved insuch horrible scenes and for not stopping the tragedies. Moreover, he wasfull of remorse over the fact that some of the Japanese war criminals had
been executed, yet he was still alive. Haunted by insomnia and nightmares,
he would suddenly jump out of bed at night, crying out. At such moments,
his wife sang the hymn “I’d Rather Have Jesus” to calm him.
In the latter half of the 1970s, Surgeon A visited the Philippines forthe first time since his return to Japan. Following that visit, he often
returned to the Philippines, especially to Mindanao and Negros islands,
bringing medical supplies and conducting medical examinations for
local residents, free of charge. He served as a foster parent for Filipino
children living in orphanages. He did so to expiate his sins, thinking, “I
don’t think enough has been done to make amends for what we did to
our neighbors.” Meanwhile, in the autumn of 1993, it was announced
that families of the victims of cannibalism in the Province of Bukidnon,
Mindanao Island, were asking for apologies and compensation for theatrocity. Although Surgeon A had begun to gain comfort by committing
himself to medical volunteer activities, he was now faced again with thefact that the war victims and their families still suffered from the trauma
they had experienced during the war. Again he felt the heavy weight of
his guilt, which would never be erased.
The new demands from the Philippines had a great impact on his
family. Feeling anguished and hesitant, in April 1999 he finally decided
to visit Bukidnon, prepared to be killed by the victims’ families. He
chose to seek the bereaved families’ forgiveness by directly apologizing
to them. The victims, recognizing his courage in directly visiting them,
accepted and forgave him by performing their traditional reconciliation
ceremony. Thus Surgeon A, directly facing Japan’s responsibility for thewar, tried to make up for it in his own way.
“My war will not end until I die,” Surgeon A used to say to his wife.
On February 27, 2005, his 87-year life came to an end. It is painful toconfront a dark past. Surgeon A’s anguished life shows us how
devastating and unreasonable wars are, and warns us against the current
trend in Japan and other countries to divert attention from the dark
histories of their own wartime past, viewing them only from aself-serving perspective.

−2−

Nagai is assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

authoritarian regime of then-President Park Chung Hee.
Solidarity was again not achieved in 1970, when I launched amovement in support of Son Jin-doo, a South Korean A-bomb
victim who had illegally entered Japan to receive medical
treatment. Some Japanese A-bomb survivors refused to help himon the grounds that an illegal immigrant is a criminal, or thatthey thought they would receive a smaller share of statecompensation if South Korean victims became eligible for thecompensation program.
People began to realize the importance of solidarity with
A-bomb victims in South Korea in the late 1970s, when the Park
dictatorial government collapsed in South Korea and Japan’s
responsibility as victimizer came to the forefront as an issue inJapan. Today, partly thanks to Korean residents of Japan who
have produced splendid literary works written in Japanese,
people have come to recognize that ethnic Koreans play animportant part in Japanese society. Despite such change,
however, those engaged in nuclear abolition and A-bomb
survivor relief activities remain reluctant to take up thevictimizer issue, fearing that to do so might weaken thepersuasiveness of their argument, as victims, against nuclear
weapons.
I could hardly tolerate the hypocrisy with which Hiroshima,a city that since the war has consistently advocated peace in theworld, turns a blind eye to the issue of atomic bomb victims inSouth Korea, while acting like an “apostle of peace.” If we heed
the appeal of Korean victims, we will realize the severity of ourpast cruelty and scrutinize our history and our present attitudes.
We need to create new “Hiroshima ideas,” based on theperception that Japanese A-bomb survivors are both victims andvictimizers.
A major cause of Hiroshima’s inability to achieve solidarity
with war victims in Okinawa and other parts of Japan that weredestroyed in air raids lies in the City’s egoism, which emphasizes
the uniqueness of its atomic bomb victim experience. In
retrospect, highlighting the uniqueness of A-bomb victims while
casting a veil over the victim-victimizer issue may have inhibited
formation of solidarity with South Korean A-bomb survivors andall other war victims.
2. Nuclear Abolition in Japan-Hiroshimaʼs Ability
as Messenger Called into Question
Through criticism, any idea or organization is strengthened
and gains progress. In Hiroshima, and in Japan, people fail torealize that the issue of A-bomb victims in South Korea issounding an alarm regarding the ideological decadence that has
been taking place here. Similar regression is also taking place inthe antinuclear movement in Hiroshima.
In the 1995 Hiroshima Peace Declaration, I stated that, in
keeping with the Constitution’s pacifist ideals and its three
non-nuclear principles (non-possession, non-manufacture andnon-introduction), the government of Japan should take the leadin working toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. What I
meant was: Japan should get out from under the U.S. nuclear
umbrella and squarely address the issue of how peace andsecurity should be achieved, even questioning the perceived
impracticability of unarmed neutralism. (In this connection, ourfinal goal is the elimination of so-called “structural violence”
from society, states and the world, not the abolition of nuclear
weapons per se.)In Hiroshima, where ordinary citizens were killedindiscriminately like insects by the atomic bomb, reconstruction
was an effort to recover the citizens’ dignity as human beings. I
believe that Hiroshima’s appeal for the abolition of nuclear
weapons should be guided by its citizens’ sense of duty: theymust continue to reject all forms of violence that may threaten
the peace and dignity of human beings, including themselves, all
the more because it was citizens of Hiroshima who underwent
that tragic experience.
In reality, however, Hiroshima is a stronghold for aconservative party that embraces nuclear deterrence andadvocates revision of the Constitution. This means that the
majority of A-bomb victims in the constituency have supported
conservative politics, in that they have appealed to the rulingparties for an aid policy. How does this phenomenon relate to the
A-bomb victim’s consciousness? There may be a serious defect

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

−3−in the “peace” to which Hiroshima adheres. It seems that theseriousness of such a potential defect is not consciously
perceived, let alone analyzed or fully understood. Hiroshima
must address this challenge, if it really holds high aims.
3. Policy Proposal from Hiroshima-Expectations for Hiroshima Peace InstituteSince serving as the mayor of Hiroshima, I have held theview that Hiroshima should promote its peace movement
through three approaches: 1) exchange and cooperation withother local governments and cities; 2) grassroots/citizen-levelexchange; and 3) offering of proposals and opinions to thegovernment of Japan and the international society. Through these
multilevel activities, Hiroshima will be able to effectively convey
its messages of peace to the world. It is reassuring to see thatexchange and cooperation with other cities and local
governments, which started during the mayoralty of Takeshi
Araki, are gaining momentum. Grassroots- and citizen-levelexchange has also made steady progress since I was mayor.
When I stated in the 1997 Peace Declaration that the culture ofpeace generated in the process of Hiroshima’s rebirth is a beaconof hope for all humanity, I was thinking of the results produced
from the grassroots level exchange that was then gaining ground.
The Hiroshima Peace Institute was established to offer
opinions and proposals to the government of Japan and theinternational society. Through the results of academic research,
Hiroshima’s aspirations toward peace should be conveyed to theforefront of Japanese and international politics. The Institute is
expected to present concrete proposals, based on solid research
results, to the government of Japan and the international society
supporting the will of Hiroshima City.
The Institute should also study the steps that need be taken
to get out from being under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, andguarantee the peace and security of Japan without that umbrella.
The Institute should be able to offer proposals supported byconvincing research results. The governments of Japan and the
U.S. will then be pressed to respond to the proposals. Suchattempts have already been made by the Peace Depot, a peace
movement NGO, and other organizations. However, proposals
from the Hiroshima Peace Institute would be far more influential
and instrumental, since the organization is backed by Hiroshima,a city widely recognized as an advocate of peace.
4. The Spirit of Hiroshima-Practicing What One Preaches
In the past, when it came to peace, everyone expressedunqualified approval. Today, it is very difficult to even talk about
peace. We sometimes encounter situations reminiscent of those
immediately before World War II, when anyone who spoke ofpeace was branded a traitor to the state. Dealing with such a
reality requires firm resolve. I am not exaggerating when I say
that we should be resolved to die to appeal for peace today. We
have to ask ourselves how we should live to achieve a peacefulworld.
Under these circumstances, it is no longer sufficient merely
to preserve the Atomic Bomb Dome, for example. We should not
adopt fetishistic ideas. The Dome must be preserved as aconstant reminder of our determination to bring peace into theworld, but if its preservation becomes an end in itself, and if theDome is deified, it will become just an “object.” We should notforget that the significance of the successful designation of theDome as a World Heritage Site lies in the 1,680,000 signaturescollected from people who aspired to preserve the Dome as afort for peace-building.
Such aspirations for peace will be meaningless unless theylead to ceaseless, day-to-day activities aimed at blocking
possible revision of the Constitution, that would allow Japan toresort to war, and rectifying problems in Japan’s foreign policy.
Each and every one of us is faced with the challenge of squarely
addressing the various problems that threaten peace byincorporating activities into our individual ways of life. The
spirit of Hiroshima is essentially the will to create a culture ofpeace and the practicing of what one preaches–asking ourselves
how we should live to make our wishes for peace come true.
Asai is president at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Concealed Atomic Bomb Material in the U.S.
Hiroko Takahashi
These top secret materials were kept in the bomb shelter. Some of
the material was returned to the Japanese government in the 1960s,
but the Japanese had to wait until 1973 for all of it to be returned.
As mentioned above, the information obtained from these atomic
bomb materials was not made available for medical research tohelp A-bomb survivors. On the contrary, it was considered highlyclassified military information.
The ABCC, established in 1947 by decree of President
Truman for long-term research on radiation effects on the human
body, was never intended to treat A-bomb survivors. Rather, the
ABCC was set up at the request of the military. In a letter fromSecretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who played a decisive rolein establishing the ABCC, to President Truman dated November
18, 1946, Forrestal wrote that studies of A-bomb survivors by the
On July 19, 1950, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
U.S. Military Joint Commission provided the U.S. with a precious
announced that Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)
opportunity to study the medical and biological effects of radiation.
would continue studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, that is,
As seen in the letter, A-bomb survivors were mere objects, sources
studies of A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thisof data for the U.S. Later, the ABCC was placed under the control
announcement came whenof the U.S. National Academy
Americans were experiencing aof Sciences and funded by thesense of crisis after the former
U.S. Atomic Energy
Soviet Union succeeded inCommission established inacquiring an atomic bomb in
1947. As the statement at theAugust 1949. Meanwhile,
beginning of this article shows,Japan was still under American
the continued study of A-bomb
occupation and the facts of thesurvivors by the ABCC wasatomic bombings were
decided in 1950.
unknown even among JapaneseWhile the significance ofpeople. Under these
the studies was expressed
circumstances, the A-bomb
repeatedly, the research results
survivor studies were condoned
were kept confidential. In
by noting that “the medical
1950, a book entitled The
Effects of Atomic Weapons was
findings of the ABCC haveimportant significance forpublished as a guidebook for
military and civil defense
civil defense. It was preparedplanning in the U.S.” In otherfor and in cooperation with the
The concealed nuclear storage at the AFIP
words, Americans were using
U.S. Atomic Energy
the studies of the A-bomb
Commission and the U.S.
survivors to prepare for nuclear war.
Department of Defense under the direction of the Los Alamos
It was not the first time the U.S. had used studies of A-bomb
Scientific Laboratory. The book included extremely optimistic
survivors for its own benefit. The purpose of the studies wascountermeasures against atomic bombs, and downplayed radiation
expressed even before the U.S. occupation of Japan. Colonel A. W.
effects. It stated that radioactive materials due to the explosion ofOughterson, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, Pacific, described theatomic bombs were unlikely to enter the human body. Accordingly,
significance of the “study of casualty producing effects of atomic
there was no report of illnesses or disorders attributed to internalbombs” in a letter dated August 28, 1945: “A study of the effects
exposure to radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomicof the two atomic bombs used in Japan is of vital importance tobombs were exploded at a high altitude. The Federal Civil Defense
our country. This unique opportunity may not again be offered
Administration, established in 1951 to implement this information
until another world war.” The U.S. Military Joint Commission forstrategy, spread propaganda regarding countermeasures against
the Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan
atomic bombs, assuring U.S. citizens that they could survive
collected such atomic bomb research materials as medical records
atomic bombings by taking swift action, such as taking shelter inof A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, formalin-fixed
the shadow of a large object.
internal organs, paraffin-fixed pathological specimens, microscopic
As is clear from U.S. government documents, atomic bomb
slides, and photographs. This material was shipped to the U.S.
materials have never been used for the development of medical
from Kure Port in Hiroshima Prefecture in January, 1946. The
treatment or to help A-bomb survivors. The materials have not
Office of the Surgeon General took control of the material,
been used for mankind. Were the A-bomb survivors treated asclassified it, and kept it in the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
guinea pigs in experiments? We can imagine that some scientists(AFIP) near Capitol Hill.
engaged in the studies suffered internal conflict in this regard.
In 1954, the AFIP was moved into a nuclear shelter built in the
Taking into account the purpose of the ABCC, the whole concept
compound of Walter Reed Army Hospital at the northern end ofof the organization, and the nuclear shelter where collected data
Washington D.C. In accordance with the move, the atomic bomb
was kept, one can say that atomic bomb material was collected andresearch materials collected in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by theused for military purposes. A-bomb survivors were treated as
Joint Commission and the ABCC were also moved to the shelter.
subjects (objects, really) from which to gather the data.

→“The Japanese survivors make up the only groupof human beings in the world who have been exposed
to an atomic bomb burst. For this reason the medical
findings of the ABCC have important significance forscientists and for military and civil defense planning in
the United States. The findings will be reported in thescientific literature and will be made available to the
Department of Defense, National Security Resources
Board, U.S. Public Health Service and other agencies,
who will be responsible for defense and relief
measures in the event of an atomic disaster in thiscountry.” (Source: The United States Atomic Energy
Commission Document)

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−4−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

IsraelThe estimate of the stockpile ranges between 75 and 200, which
could include nuclear bombs, missile warheads, nuclear artillery
shells, and nuclear mines. Israel possesses 50 land-based Jericho I
missiles with a range of 1,200 kilometers and 50 Jericho II missiles
with a range of 1,800 kilometers, 25 F-15 fighters that can fly 4,450
kilometers and 310 F-16 fighters that can fly 1,600 kilometers.
According to some sources, it has been preparing to arm three
diesel-powered submarines with cruise missiles that can carry nuclear
warheads.

One of the most serious global effects of the 9.11 terrorist attacks in2001 was the almost total suspension of efforts by the international
community to reduce nuclear weapons in the cooperative manner
observed during the 20th century. Whereas the danger of “nuclear
proliferation” has been cited often to hide this reality, international
surveillance of nations that had already acquired those weapons has
become increasingly lax.
In addition to the few nations suspected of working on nuclear
weapons, more attention should be paid to the total global stockpileof nuclear weapons, on which data as recent as May 2006 has been
provided by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, among othersources.

India

India was estimated to possess 40 to 50 nuclear warheads in2005. Another source estimates the stockpile at 75-110. Delivery
vehicles include 171 aircraft with a range of 1,600-1,800 kilometers,
36 land-based Agni I ballistic missiles with a range of 700 kilometersand 36 Agni II missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers. India may
also be developing sea-based missiles and ICBMs.

United States
The total stockpile of nuclear warheads in early 2006 is around9,960, of which 5,735 are active and operational. This figure includes
5,235 strategic and 500 non-strategic warheads. The remaining 4,225
warheads are in reserve or inactive, some of which will be dismantled.
The U.S. possesses the following major delivery vehicles: 500
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 336 submarine-launchedballistic missiles (SLBMs), and 72 strategic bombers.

Pakistan
Stockpile estimates range between 24 and 110. Pakistan possesses
32 F-16 fighters made in U.S., and is developing the land-based
Ghauri-1 missile with a range of 1,300-1,500 kilometers and theGhauri-2 with a range of 2,000-2,300 kilometers.

RussiaIt is estimated that the Russian stockpile of nuclear warheads asof early 2006 is approximately 16,000, of which 5,830 are active andoperational. This figure includes 3,500 strategic warheads and 2,330

Real Dangers of Nuclear Weapons Unseen:
Who Are the Free-riders?
Kazumi Mizumoto
non-strategic warheads. Around 10,000 are in reserve or inactive andscheduled to be dismantled. Russia has 549 ICBMs, 192 SLBMs, and78 strategic bombers as major delivery vehicles.

Although total numbers differ depending on whether “reserved”
and “inactive” warheads are included, there are still more than 27,000“active,” “reserve,” “inactive,” or “to be dismantled” nuclear warheads
in the global arsenal. The importance and urgency of global nuclear
disarmament and elimination remains unchanged.
While the international community’s attention has been only
focused on the issue of “non-proliferation” in Iran and North Korea,
the three former “threshold” states–namely Israel, India, and Pakistan–have been elevated to “actual nuclear state.”
The NPT Review Conference that was concluded in May 2005
with no positive achievement is still fresh in our memory. Several
reasons for its failure were noted, such as strong, unilateral U.S.
rejection of nuclear disarmament under international control, and lackof concerted action by the New Agenda Coalition that took the lead in
the 2000 NPT Review Conference. However, little attention has been
given to the lost recognition of “nuclear dangers,” which seemed tohave been shared by the international community as a whole until the
9.11 attacks.
Currently, the P-5 nations under the NPT and the three “de facto
nuclear states” continue their possession of nuclear weapons,
free-riding on the non-proliferation regime. The time has come for theinternational community to be reawakened to this serious danger.

United Kingdom
The total number of warheads in early 2006 is estimated to bearound 200. Since March 1998, the British have been relying on four
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), each of which
can carry 16 Trident SLBMs with up to three warheads per missile.
FranceAs of 2005, a total of 348 warheads were stockpiled, of which 288
are strategic and 60 are non-strategic. France currently possesses four
SSBNs, of which three are usually kept in the operational cycle with 48
SLBMs per vessel. All strategic warheads are deployed in SSBNs. All
the non-strategic warheads are on missiles carried by aircraft.
China
The stockpile was estimated at 400 until the end of 2003. However,it has been reduced to approximately 200 by May 2006, of which 130
are deployed on land-based or sea-based missiles and bombers. That
figure includes 20 strategic warheads for Dong Feng-5, an ICBM with arange of 13,000 kilometers, 60 non-strategic warheads for Dong Feng-3,-4, -21, 12 non-strategic warheads for Julang-1 SLBM, and around 40
warheads for bombers. Around 70 warheads are in reserve.

Mizumoto is associate professor at HPI→

In Japan today, we have a “Civil Protection Plan” based on theillusion that people could survive a nuclear attack by taking somecountermeasures. This plan is actually being implemented,
showing that Japan has learned nothing from its past nuclear
disasters. The word “Kokumin hogo keikaku” (Civil ProtectionPlan) stems from the translation of “Civil Defense Program” in the
U.S. I believe that the Civil Protection Plan is a part of an
information strategy by the Japanese government to prepare fornuclear wars and abandon endangered people as the U.S. did in the
1950s.
I sincerely hope that the atomic bomb material, previously

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

treated as classified military information, will never be again used
for the pursuit of selfish national interests or preparation for
nuclear war. I hope the material will be permanently preserved andused as a precious resource by researchers, journalists, citizens andfuture generations doing their best to prevent nuclear war and makethe world a better place for human habitation. In this way, we cangive substance to the cry of the A-bomb survivors, “No more
Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis.”−5−

Takahashi is research associate at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

HPI Research Project

An Exploration of the Atomic Bomb and Nuclear War
in Art and Popular Culture in Japan and the United States

The first workshop of the project entitled “An Exploration of theAtomic Bomb and Nuclear War in Art and Popular Culture in Japanand the United States” was held near Chicago, U.S., on February 15thand 16th, 2006. This project challenges both artists and scholars to
explore a variety of art and popular culture responses to the Bomb.
The centering theme is the effect that the Bomb has had on traditional
concepts of the future: the idea that there might be no future. This
project explores film, manga, paintings, poetry, consumer goods, anda number of other media of expression that have elaborated thepossibilities implicit in this breakdown of traditional narratives of the
future.
The project gathers artists, analysts and historians who explore
the diversity of visions evoked by the mushroom cloud hanging overthe future of humanity during the last half of the 20th century. Fromthe effect of nuclear testing on sci-fi movies during the mid-50s in
both the U.S. and Japan, to the socially engaged visual discussion
about power embodied in Superflat art, the atomic bomb has had aprofound impact on art and on popular culture. These visions of the
post-nuclear future have had a powerful effect on people throughout
the world, and continue to shape their sense of the future ofhumankind on Earth.
The workshop was a preliminary gathering of the scholars

HPI Research Project

involved in the project. Dr. Spencer Weart, the Director of the Centerfor the History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics
presented his plan to extend his landmark book, Nuclear Fear,considering nuclear images since 1988. Professor Mick Broderick of
Murdoch University in Australia presented his work on nuclear
ephemera. Efforts are underway to secure a gallery display space forProfessor Broderick to exhibit this material during our workshop in
2007. Professor Margot Henriksen of the University of Hawaii
presented her work on the nuclear identity and culture of Las Vegas,
the town closest to the U.S. continental testing site. Dr. Jerome
Shapiro presented his ideas on a comparison of museum
representations of atomic history in the United States and in Japan.
Robert Jacobs, an assistant professor at HPI, presented his work on
the origin and history of the image of the Whole Earth as seen fromspace, and the relationship of this icon to the bombing of Hiroshima.
In addition to the outlined paper presentations, the workshop
included a roundtable discussion on the role of art and popular culture
in historical analysis, and on the current state of scholarship on the
study of nuclear culture.
By Robert Jacobs, assistant professor at HPIPolitics of Regret: Collective Memory in Northeast Asia

Differences between Western and Eastern consciousness are mostevident where feelings aroused by the past are crucial factors in the
management of international relations. Many of these feelings stemfrom the pivotal event of the 20th century–World War II. We live
today in the shadow of this war; much writing about it has provokedrecriminations, regret and repentance; ambivalence and indifference.
These writings and feelings are important for what they tell us about
practical affairs among nations and what we need to know to improve
the present body of knowledge on culture and memory.
How does an open confrontation with guilt protect new generations
and sustain democracy? Can one imagine a point at which constantinvocation of past wrongs backfires, inhibiting rather than promoting
recognition of moral responsibility? Might a measure of silence–not
total silence but partial relief from the clamor of self-condemnation–benecessary for rather than harmful to the democratic consensus? How
valid is the assertion that globalization of Western democratic values
sharpens the spur of regrets and compels apologies to the injured? What
does the empirical evidence existing in Northeast Asia regarding war,
responsibility, guilt, regrets and apologies suggest to the ongoingcollective memory discourse in the West?
The 12 participants of the first workshop held at Hiroshima
Peace Institute on March 7-9, 2006, tried to address the questions
raised above. Ten papers in various stages were presented during theperiod. Collaborative group discussions followed each paper
presentation in order to sound out thematic coordination and create
theoretical cohesion. The interdisciplinary nature of the project posed
promises, and challenges.
The following is a list of participants and paper titles:● Donald Baker“Exacerbated Politics: The Legacy of Political Trauma in South
Korea”● Julian Dierkes“Who are the Japanese? How Postwar Japanese History
Textbooks Define Collectivities”

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−6−● Gary Alan Fine and Bin Xu“Who Lost China?: Blame Games, National Malaise, and theConstruction of the Asian ‘Other’ in Postwar American
Politics”● Kazuya Fukuoka (collaboration with Barry Schwartz)“Shame and Pride: A Comparative Study on Collective Memory
in Japan and the U.S.”● Akiko Hashimoto“Memories of Defeat in Japan”● Mikyoung Kim“Framing Public Memory Discourse: A Comparative Study ofHiroshima Peace Museum and the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan”● Jeffrey Olick“Politics of Regret as Cultural Form”● Patricia Steinhoff“The Rise and Fall of the Leftists in Japan”● William Stueck and Boram Yi“Rhetoric on Foreign Troops on Our Land: A Historical Analysis
of Presidential Statements on the United States Forces in
Korea”● Xiaohong Xu (collaboration with Lyn Spillman)“Coming to Terms with the Nanjing Massacre”
By Mikyoung Kim, assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

HPI Research Project

Bombing and the Civilian: A Twentieth Century History

The history of aerial bombing of civilians goes back many decades.
Indeed, the large-scale aerial bombing of civilians was first conductedduring the latter half of World War I. It was a new strategy to bomb
arsenals and workers’ residential houses in enemy territory in order tobreak the morale of the enemy nation. Many militarists believed that thisstrategy would quickly bring the end to the prolonged war that seemed
endless at the time. In practice, however, due to the rudimentary natureof their aircraft and aerial bombing techniques, bombs inevitably went
astray, killing many civilians in their wake.
Shortly after the war, Britain initiated the extensive use offighter-bombers developed during the war in order to suppress local
revolts against British rule in its colonies and mandated territories in
Asia and Africa. Around this time, Italy also adopted this policy for thesame purpose in its colonies such as Libya and Ethiopia, even resortingto the use of poison gas in addition to high explosive bombs.
In the European theater of World War II, indiscriminate bombing–alias “strategic bombing”–to terrorize civilians escalated as the war
intensified. Many civilians in various major cities were victimized as aresult of both the Axis and Allied sides engaging in such bombing, withmass slaughter as the result. The Germans suffered particularly heavy
casualties. By the end of the war, 131 German cities and towns werebombed, and approximately 600,000 German civilians were killed byindiscriminate bombing conducted by the British and the U.S. forces.
In the Asia Pacific region, it was the Japanese Imperial Navy Forcethat first engaged in indiscriminate bombing, starting with an attack on
civilians in Shanghai in January 1932 during the so-called Shanghai
Incident. Thereafter civilians in cities such as Nanjing, Wuhan, Canton
and Chongqing were targeted.
As Japan began to lose the war in the Pacific, many cities on Japan’s
main islands became the targets of U.S. air raids. The U.S. engaged in“saturation bombing” in a literal sense until the very end of the war inAugust 1945, repeatedly attacking civilians in various cities from
Hokkaido to Okinawa including Tokyo, Kawasaki, Osaka, Kobe,
Fukuoka and Naha. In total 64 major cities were destroyed, causing overone million casualties including half a million deaths, the majority ofthem civilians. Indiscriminate bombing reached its peak, however, whenmass-killing atomic weapons were used to annihilate two Japanese cities–Hiroshima and Nagasaki–in August 1945.
One of the aims of this research project is to analyze closely whatkind of military and moral justifications supported the aerial bombing ofcivilians and how it expanded and intensified through various military
operations and wars during the 20th century. The project also questions
why this theory justifying mass killing has persisted for so long evenafter the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is important to ask why
the strategy was applied during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and why
variants of it are still used to some extent to justify the “collateral
damage” of “precision bombing” in wars such as those in Afghanistan,
Kosovo and Iraq. At the same time this study will explore ways todisseminate understanding of the fact that killing civilians is a crime
against humanity regardless of the asserted military justifications, acrime that should be punished on the basis of the Nuremberg and Geneva
principles.
On December 8th and 9th last year, a group of 10 researchers fromthe U.S., Australia and Japan held the first workshop in San Francisco todeal with these questions, examining important issues from the multiple
viewpoints of history, ethics and international law. This project willcontinue until early next year.
By Yuki Tanaka, professor at HPIForthcoming HPI Research Forums
Title: How to Memorialize War for Peace: A
Vietnam War Veteran’s My Lai Peace Park
Project
Speaker: Mike Boehm
Hiroshi Fujimoto
Date:
July 31 (Mon.) 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m.
Venue: Conference Room at HPI<Outline of the Presentation>
Boehm initiated the My Lai (Son My) Peace Park Project on apeople-to-people basis in the village where the My Lai Massacre occurred.
The My Lai (Son My) Massacre is a symbol of the tragedy of the Vietnam
War. Boehm works to memorialize the tragedy of the war to promote
peace, making the My Lai Peace Park as an expression of hope. In the HPI
forum, Fujimoto will discuss the significance of the My Lai Peace Park
Project, and Boehm will make a presentation on this and his other projects.
Mike Boehm is a Vietnam War veteran who served from 1968 to
1969. Since 1992, he has initiated projects to build reconciliation andmutual understanding between Vietnam and the U.S.
Hiroshi Fujimoto has an M.A. in Political Science, Meiji University,
1982, and has held the post of Professor at Nanzan University from 2001
to the present. Through study of the Vietnam War, he has examined U.S.
foreign relation in the 20th century world.

Title: What Do Americans Think about theBombing of Hiroshima and Why?
Speaker: Dr. Robert Jacobs
Date:
September 6 (Wed.) 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m.
Venue: Conference Room at HPI<Outline of the Presentation>
Many citizens of Japan do not understand the feelings and thoughtsof Americans regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Dr. Jacobs will describe the thoughts and debates about
this subject in the United States from the period immediately after WorldWar II to the present. He will focus especially on current beliefs in
America about the use of nuclear weapons on Japan. In addition, Jacobs
will provide an analysis of the sources of these thoughts and opinions
and discuss their impact on issues such as continued weapons stockpilingand global nuclear proliferation.
Dr. Robert Jacobs is an assistant professor at HPI with a research
specialization on American thought, attitude and culture surrounding thedevelopment and use of nuclear weapons. He joined HPI in October of2005.
◇ How to Attend: Contact HPI for reservations, which can be made byphone, fax, and email by September 4.

◇ How to Attend: Contact HPI for reservations, which can be made byphone, fax, and email by July 27.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006

−7−

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

International SymposiumLife Out of Death: Bringing Hibakushas Lessons into the 21st Century
During the last 60 years, survivors of the nuclear holocaust have been confronted with importunate psychological problems in addition to the various illnesses
caused by radiation. How can we learn from their experiences in overcoming such problems? And how can we effectively utilize them to build a peaceful society? Facedwith the “weathering of the Hiroshima experience,” we need to consider these questions seriously. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their indescribableconsequences produced various psychological effects both on the Japanese and Americans. They have also created numerous forms of anti-nuclear culture in bothnations. The Symposium will focus upon these issues and explore the direction that younger generations might take in pursuing peace in the future.
Panelists :Robert Lifton Psychiatrist, Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
City University of New York, U.S.
Betty Lifton Psychologist, U.S.
Rika Kayama Psychiatrist, Professor, Tezukayama Gakuin
Univeristy
Robert Jacobs Assistant Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute
Coordinator : Yuki Tanaka Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute

Date :
Venue :

November 4 (Sat.), 2006 1:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Himawari Hall, second basement, International ConferenceCenter, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (1-5 Nakajima-cho,Naka-ku, Hiroshima)
Host :
Hiroshima Peace InstituteCollaborator : Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

Lecture by Professor Robert Lifton
Prior to the symposium, there will be a lecture by Professor Robert Lifton,
whose name is familiar to many citizens of Hiroshima as the author of the book
Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima. A question and answer session will be
included in the lecture, and we hope for your participation.
Title :
Date :
Venue :

Synopsis :The Wisdom of Survivors: Hiroshima and Beyond
November 2 (Thur.) 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Memorial Hall, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (1-2
Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima)

The psychological process experienced by Hibakusha inconfronting and overcoming problems as survivors of a nuclear
holocaust will be closely analyzed by comparing it withattitudes of Jewish survivors of Auschwitz and American
veterans towards the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Through thisanalysis, the wisdom of survivors will be appropriately
examined and evaluated.

Further information for making reservations for the symposium and lecture will be available in October.

ＤＩＡＲＹ
February 24, 2006 - June 30, 2006
Feb. 24 -Mar. 10 Kazumi Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of reconstruction andaid project in Cambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
Mar. 1 Hiroko Takahashi gives lecture on “U.S. Nuclear Test and Concealed Informationon Radiation Exposure” at March 1 Bikini-Day conference in Hiroshima by Japan Council
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) in Hiroshima.
Mar. 5 -12 Yoshiaki Sato visits Germany and Netherlands for research on international
courts and tribunals.
Mar. 7 Yuki Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary
Suicide Bombers” at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, California
University.
Mar. 9 HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture on “Civil Protection Plan andHiroshima/Nagasaki” at meeting on Civil Protection Plan, organized by Nagasaki
Prefectural Government Center in Nagasaki.
Mar.11 Asai gives lecture on “Peace Constitution and Hiroshima” at workshop forJapan’s Constitution, organized by Forum for Life, Living and Peace, in Hiroshima.
Mar.14 Tanaka gives lecture on “Terror From the Sky” to group of visiting students fromthe University of Minnesota at Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation.
Mar.22 Mizumoto summarizes visits to Cambodia in February and March at workshop
for reconstruction and aid project in Cambodia, organized by and held at Hiroshima
Prefectural Government.
Mar.24 Takahashi reports on “Atomic Bomb Materials in the U.S.” at 2nd Annual War
and Peace Workshop “Culture and Conflicts” organized by Graduate University for
Advanced Studies.
Mar.29 Mizumoto attends as committee member 4th conference of core members ofHiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture, in Tokyo.
Mar.30 Asai gives lecture on “On Peace by a Newcomer to Hiroshima” at workshop
organized by Association for International Education and Peace, at Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum▽Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary
Suicide Bombers” at Center for Dialogue, La Trobe University in Australia.
Apr. 5 Asai holds talks with Akira Yamaima, chief director at Hiroshima Institute for
Peace Education in Hiroshima Institute for Peace Education.
Apr. 5 - 7 Mikyoung Kim visits South Korea for research on Korea-Japan history
textbook issues and gives lecture (on 6th) on “Historical Perception and History Textbook”
at the 5th Korean Textbook Forum in Seoul, South Korea.
Apr. 8 /10 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Importance of Having a Dream” at “Spring
Breeze” Camp in Saeki Ward for freshmen of Hiroshima Kokutaiji High School.
Apr. 9 Narayanan Ganesan gives lecture on “Evolving Democratic Political Party
System in Thailand” at annual meeting of the American Association for Asian Studies, San
Francisco.
Apr. 16 Asai attends celebration of 60th anniversary of the establishment of “Kinoko
Kai,” a group of people with microcephaly caused by atomic bomb, in Hiroshima.
Apr. 24 Takahashi attends Exploratory Committee for Renewal Plan of Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum.
May 3 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Constitution as Beacon for the World” at gathering
marking 60th anniversary of Japan’s Constitution, organized by Suwa Regional Meeting on
Japan’s Constitution, in Nagano.
May 5 - 8 Asai visits China to discuss academic exchange with Institute of International
Studies, Tsinghua University.
May 11 Asai gives lecture on “International Situations Surrounding Nuclear Weapons andExpectations for Civil Movements” at workshop on peace, organized by Hiroshima
Prefectural Federation of Consumers’ Co-operative Union in Hiroshima.
May 13 Asai serves as panelist at symposium on Japan’s Constitutional Revision in forum“What Should We Do? Japan’s Constitution and Pacifism” in Okayama.
May 16 Asai visits Momiji Welfare Organization “Momiji Workshop” and Yumetopia,
facility for the disabled.
May 22 Asai participates in roundtable conference with 7 A-bomb Survivors’
Organizations at Hiroshima Prefectural Culture Center.

May 24 Asai participates in Forum for Institutes Engaged in A-bomb Survivors’ Medical
Care at Hiroshima Medical Association Hall▽Mizumoto gives lecture on “Development of
Learning Program to Deepen Recognition of A-bomb Experiences and Sense of Peace” forPeace Education Course organized by and held at Hiroshima City Education Center.
Jun. 1 Asai gives lecture on “Civil Servants and Article 9” at inauguration gathering of
Article 9 Association for Civil Servants organized by the preparatory committee in
Hiroshima.
Jun. 3 Asai gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Japan’s Constitution” at workshop forJapan’s Constitution organized by Hiroshima Medical Co-operative in Hiroshima ▽Takahashi gives lecture on “Lucky Dragon Incident and Anti-nuclear Movement” at
Hiroshima Peace Forum organized by Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation in Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum.
Jun. 7 Makiko Takemoto gives lecture on “Pacifism and Democracy in Germany” atinternational conference “Democracy, Human Rights, Peace in Gwangju and Hiroshima”
organized by Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Honam University, South Korea.
Jun. 9 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Current State and Tasks of Peace Research” attraining session for Level II registered nursing care managers organized by Hiroshima
Prefectural Nursing Association.
Jun. 10 Asai gives lecture on “On Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and Grassroots
Movement’s Roles” at general assembly of Fukuoka Association for Pursuing Non-nuclear
Government in Fukuoka▽Takahashi chairs “Global Hibakusha” Sectional Meetingorganized by Peace Study Association of Japan at Meiji Gakuin University, in Tokyo.
Jun. 11 Asai gives lecture on “On So-called Revisions of the Fundamental Law of
Education and the Constitution” at workshop for Fundamental Law of Education and Japan’sConstitution organized by Fukuyama Association for Japan’s Constitution and Fundamental
Law of Education in Fukuyama City, in Hiroshima.
Jun. 17 Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s War Responsibility and Hiroshima” to students
enrolled in Peace Study Course on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at Waseda University, Tokyo▽
Takahashi gives lecture on “Problems of U.S. Information Control of the Atomic Bombs” tooverseas students of Sophia University at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Jun. 21 -Jul. 2 Scherrer visits Mongolia for research on indigenous and nomadic people’s
issues and their relationship with the state.
Jun. 24 Mizumoto gives lecture on “A-bomb Experiences in Hiroshima and Current
International Peace” and chairs group discussion at Hiroshima Peace Forum organized by
Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Jun. 26 Mizumoto and Takahashi attend annual meeting of research group on referencematerials at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Jun. 29 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Peace” at training program forteachers from Bosnia and Herzegovina organized by Hiroshima International Center and
JICA at Hiroshima Prefectural Government.
– Visitors to HPI –Mar.10 Norma Quixtán, Secretary of Peace, Republic of Guatemala.
Mar.15 Dr. Ananda Shastri, associate professor, Department of Physics & Astronomy,
Minnesota State University and 21 students.
Mar.22 Dr. Kazuo Takahashi, professor, International Christian University, Rumiko
Aruga, coordinator, Rotary Peace Center, International Christian University, and Cathy
Brown and 3 other scholarship recipients.
Apr. 19 Dr. Volodymyr Tykhyy, Academy of Science in Kyiv, Ukraine, Dr. Yuri
Shcherbak, former Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S., and Dr. Tetsuji Imanaka, assistantprofessor, Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute.
May 12 Dr. Gregg Supernovich, professor, Department of Comparative Literature,
Castleton State College, Vermont, U.S.
Jun. 14 Dr. Andrea Bartoli, founding director, Center for International Conflict Resolution,
Columbia University and Mikio Tajima, professor emeritus, Kwansei Gakuin University.
Jun. 21 Dr. Ken-ichi Ikeda, associate professor of faculty of literature, Chuo University,and 4 students.
Jun. 29 Shingo– Fukuyama, secretary general, Japan Congress Against A-and H-Bombs.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.9, No.1 July 26, 2006
Copyright 2006 HPI All rights reserved

lPublisher: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
lOte-machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan. E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
lPrinted by Nishiki Print co., ltd.
Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.1 July 2006