On the 72nd anniversary of Hiroshima Japan calls for a denuclearized world. Think Trump would comply? Why?

Way back when in the good days BT I remember the United States led the way on this. Boy things sure changed didn't they? Humans have not evolved very much in the years they have been here on earth. A very thin veneer of "civilized" is all they could manage and that is wearing off very quickly these days. Junk in junk out. When the junk in the White House will be booted out I cannot predict. Not soon enough for me or thee I dare say! Thank you for your  reply Addb and Happy Monday! :)

FWIW Many people in UK don't want the nukes... they tend to be American, which in itself is another story, as is the fact they cost a hideous amount of money. However,  I am thinking the same is true of the States.. many people there don't want them?  In our case we are *advised* to hang on to them - so in other words, America wants us to keep them - just sayin it ain't like we are any threat to anyone. 

I don't believe that any rationally-thinking person wants nuclear weapons in our very politically fragile world. But now that the world has them who do you think should blink first? And then how does the world actually verify that all those weapons have been destroyed?

By the way, Japan shouldn't be given a free pass on this mess. With them having committed even worse (and unprosecuted) war crimes than the Germans, war crimes like the Nanking Massacre and the Baatan Death March, the bombing of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki did hasten the Japanese surrender and saved countless lives that may have been otherwise lost in a Japanese "mainland" invasion.

Agreed on the first point no rationally thinking person.. I'd be over the moon if UK were the first to get rid of Nukes..  I'd have to look up the Nanking Massacre and the Baatan march but at this point kinda hard to see how it could be worse than the holocaust with so many thousands being killed and tortured. 

Eek.. very nasty.. I looked up the things you make reference to.. horrible.. however, I would say two things.. 1) that didn't give Americans the right to nuke the Japanese.. It may, arguably have given the Chinese/Filipinos a right though two wrongs don't make a right. and 2) in terms of numbers the Holocaust was still way worse, especially when you take into account other casualties.
 https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008193

No? Then look up Pearl Harbor. That was a surprise attack on US military personnel and civilians in a US territory, a direct attack on the USA during peacetime with Japan. There was no state of war between the USA and Japan, either declared or implied, when those Zeros appeared on the horizon over Oahu.

That deliberate act of unwarranted, inhumane aggression brought the USA into the war in the Pacific theater. And at that point we had every right to prosecute that war as we saw fit, up to using those nuclear weapons. (Rest assured that if Japan had had nuclear weapons during the war they would have used them against the US without hesitation, even at Pearl Harbor.) But more than that it's a moral obligation to stop the unwarranted, inhumane aggressor in the fastest possible way. So if it hastened the end of that Japanese brutality so be it. It WAS the right thing to do at the time.

And I didn't say that the Nanking Massacre and the Bataan Death March were Japan's only transgressions. Those two incidents were only the tiny tip of that very large iceberg, so to speak. In fact, Japan's wartime inhumanities are generally known as the "Asian Holocaust". They were VERY brutal bastards. (And we were stupid enough to house Japanese officers that were prisoners of war in luxury hotels Stateside, and even made sure that they received unlimited fresh-squeezed orange juice at breakfast; all while US civilians living near those hotels (and across the country) had their access to such necessities as sugar, flour and gasoline "rationed".) 

Here's a good starting point to research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

But in terms of number??? Ye we all know the Americans weren't best pleased about Pearl Harbour.. but did that give them the right to nuke and cause much more harm? IMO there's no excuse for nuking anyone.. it's vile the damage that can be done for years and years after.. But that wasn't the point.. this was about pedantics... a) In terms of number it wasn't as bad as the holocaust.. and b) you mentioned initially two things, both of which were not really anything to do with America and which again in terms of number didn't match the holocaust which was kinda what you indicated.. At the time you only mentioned two.. and you likened it to being worse than what the Germans did.. You may have had other things in mind but how was I to know that? I still believe that in terms of number the Holocaust won :(  And as I say.. crimes against CHina were not America's business.  That IS a known fault of America's.. 
I've no doubt that the things you mentioned were indeed horrid. I am not disagreeing per-se.. just being pedantic.   And the point was.. Japan didn't have nukes.. and arguably it was an exponentially disproportionate response to nuke. Pedantically it didn't stop the war did it? Hastened is a subjective thing - it could have been any number of reasons.. rarely ever one.

Japans inhumanity re prisoners of war are well known.. The Japanese are a very interesting nation... very strong, very determined, very committed.. much that is good, much that others admire.. but yes, very ruthless and no nonsense.   Apologies I almost never look to wikipedia for references but I shall investigate further. 

People who died in Pearl Harbour https://visitpearlharbor.org/faqs/how-many-people-died-at-pearl-harbor-during-the-attack/
Number of people who died in Hiroshims https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml

I m not being at all unkind of inflammatory here.. just stating facts.. around 2,000 died in Pearl Harbour.. around 135,000 died in Hiroshima, and 64,000 at nagasaki..  There is NO comparison and any attempts at same are, well just horrible. 

I am truly sorry here.. but this isnt about opinion, national pride and dogma have to be put aside.. it blinds people to atrocities, we are talking numbers here.. and the response in nuking was, without a shadow of doubt disproportionate..  The Japs were horrible in how they treated prisoners.. none of this justifies nuking.. and that's just based on logic and calm analysis of the numbers and the facts. 

Off to bed now, have a great evening.. 

Nuclear war. America did it first and onliest. With Doofus Donny there could well be a second time. He asked years ago "why have nuclear weapons if you aren't going to use them?" A very dumb question from an even dumber doofus. America has the  diSTINCtion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will STINK again if doofus keeps saying what he is saying and being defended by those whom we thought were the adults. There are no adults there anywhere. Woe is us. Thank you for your reply Addb! :)

"Weren't best pleased" about Pearl Harbor? Innocent people died for no reason in that cowardly attack. Those innocent people there in west Honolulu were just chattle in your eyes?

War is war, and war is hell, as it should be. It's not a child's game where everyone gets to go home to cold milk and warm cookies after a "mock" battle. It should be so terrible that no one, even crazies like the one in charge of North Korea should be willing to pursue it. But having said that I must ask why you think "nuclear" weapons are so much worse than "conventional" bombs? Either way you're dead if one lands on you. Personally I think that they're all deplorable.

But consider that the nuclear weapons that were dropped on Japan were more about shock and awe that utter destruction. A normal B29 bomber run with full ordinance did about the same level of damage, particular from fire, than did one of those little firecrackers (compared to today's nuclear weapons the had very little punch). But the fact that we could do that same level of damage, take out the same number of factories, with just a single airplane, a single bomb, got their attention in a much stronger way than would a squadron of B29's. 

As to the justification, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic military targets in a country that was still quite aggressively prosecuting their war efforts. In contrast the Brits bombed Dresden off the face of the earth when the war efforts in the European theater were winding down. Oh, Dresden was a strategically unimportant city, a LOT of innocent civilians died there with absolutely no gain in the war effort.

And the residual radiation was a shock to the Manhattan Project scientists too. There's been discussion about that, both pro and con. But I doubt that Colonel Tibbets and his copilot on that Enola Gay mission would have toured what was left of Hiroshima just two weeks after the bombing run if they had any concerns of the danger of radiation exposure. (And the Colonel did live to 91 . . .)  

As to the statement that the Japanese are "very interesting" and are "strong and determined"? Really? How about religious zealots? In the eyes of the Japanese their emperor was a GOD. Because of that almost all Japanese were blindly committed to the war effort. In fact, the last Japanese solder didn't lay down his arms until 1974, and that took an order from the "Imperial Command". Talk about being rabidly committed to a cause! (Reminds me of certain Muslim sects these days.) 

If you are going to research the subject further I understand a good tome on the bombings from an eyewitness point of view is: To Hell and Back: The Last Train from Hiroshima. (Haven't read it yet myself, but plan to.)

So no, I still think that deploying those two weapons was the right thing to do at the time.

I didn't read most of that... no offence meant I would normally but I am trying to learn the lesson.. sometimes, with some people it doesn't matter how much logic and reason you throw at them they just wont ever get it.. 

SO my only comment is... (and I DO feel it's more than enough!) you said, '"Weren't best pleased" about Pearl Harbor? Innocent people died for no reason in that cowardly attack. Those innocent people there in west Honolulu were just chattle in your eyes?'  SEE this is what I mean.. I never made any reference to how I feel about the innocent Americans being killed. ALL Innocent losses are lamentable.. BUT< and this is the salient point here that is being overlooked repeatedly.. There were 2000 losses there and yet you have expressed sentiments that indicate that you are proud and feel it's justified for America then to turn round and kills many thousands in retaliation...  That's what I am trying, and clearly failing to get you to ponder.. it's logic, it's reason.. but for some reason you seem to think all those over 200,000 people that were killed by the nukes were somehow NOT Innocent? Men, women, children..  I am sorry you don't agree, that's your prerogative but in many people's book killing 200,000 innocent men, women, children and old folk, civilians aka innocent people,  in retaliation for 2000 is heavy handed and incredibly disproportionate.. You can disagree all you wish but the figs stand for themeselves.. America retaliated by killing a hundred times more people than were lost at Pearl Harbour.  Heavy handed, disproportionate and some would say evil, arrogant and unwarranted.. And yet you seem to feel still that Japanese are somehow worse?  

"it doesn't matter how much logic and reason you throw at them they just wont ever get it.. " Oh, dear! You can say that again; but I am trying to get through to you. I know that your mind is already made up and that I'm only trying to confuse you with actual facts, but one last time to obviously deaf ears . . . 

You seem to be unaware of history from that time period and lack the understanding of what actually happened. You also seem to be totally opaque to the culture of Japan from that time period as well. You need to do some actual research if you do have any interest in that span in world history, more that whatever drivel you've had fed to you in the UK. (Again, look at my next-to-the-last paragraph from last post.)

The first major, salient point you're ignoring is that Japan attacked the US, not the other way around. The Pearl Harbor attack was intended by the Japanese to be the opening act in a "legal" war that Japan was in the process of declaring on the USA. (The attack on Pearl Harbor was not a one-time-thing that like you seem to think it was.)  Unfortunately the incompetent Japanese diplomats representing their country in Washington, DC screwed up and didn't deliver that declaration just before the attack like they were supposed to. So Japan officially declared war on the USA just after the attack on Pearl Harbor (literally an hour or two after), but BEFORE we made a counter-declaration (which was a direct result of that Pearl Harbor attack and THEIR declaration of war).  That places it ALL on Japan's shoulders; the USA didn't start the aggression in the Pacific but had no choice but to defend themselves and finish it (while managing to help keep you from having to learn German, learning to conjugate those German verbs is pure hell, or so I hear). Japan even made a couple of attempts to invade the US after Pearl which shows that they would have very much been a real threat had we not kept them busy in the Pacific. How you can think a pacifist outcome would have been possible boggles rational thought.

And by the way, you seem also to conveniently overlook the fact that a LOT more that 2,000-people died at the hands of the Japanese between the time of the Nanking Massacre and the end of the war. The death count from that period is estimated to be 6-million to 8-million souls at the hands of those Japanese sadists, over 10-million if you want to look back to where WWII's Pacific Theater roots can be found in the late 1800's. But perhaps the USA shouldn't have stepped in to stop the aggressions in the Pacific and European Theaters? 

And then after North Korea it will be someone else. The genie is out of the bottle.