Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Seventy Years Later: Perpetuating Memory as Recollections of the Atomic Bombings Fade
From the Opinion Survey in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Nationwide on the Atomic Bombings
1
June 2016
MASAKI Miki
Public Opinion Research Division
NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute
1This article is based on the author’s article “Genbaku toka kara 70-nen, Usureru kioku dou kataritsugu:
Genbaku Ishiki Chosa (Hiroshima,Nagasaki, Zenkoku) yori” [70 Years since the Atomic Bombing:How to Pass
Down Waning Memories From a Public Opinion Survey on People’s Awareness of the Atomic Bombings],
originally published in the November 2015 issue of Hoso kenkyu to chosa [The NHK Monthly Report on
Broadcast Research]. Full text in Japanese available at:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/research/yoron/pdf/20151101_5.pdf
Abstract
This paper is an analysis and report on the findings of an opinion survey
conducted by NHK in June 2015, seventy years after the end of World War II,
among people living in the city of Hiroshima, the city of Nagasaki, and people
nationwide (including those two cities). The survey, conducted by telephone,
compares the responses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents with nationwide
responses and also on a time series basis. Asked how often they talk about the
atomic bombings, about two-thirds of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents said they
“seldom” or “never” did, an increase compared to 2010. In Hiroshima, 69 percent
were able to give the correct date of the bombing of Hiroshima, the same level as
in 2010, but in Nagasaki, the proportion of respondents giving the correct date for
the bombing of Nagasaki was 59 percent, down from 64 percent in 2010, a sign
that memory of the events is fading even in the city that was bombed. On the other
hand, only about 30 percent of the nationwide responses were able to give the
correct dates for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a substantial
difference with the two cities. In response to a question on their feelings about the
United States dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 2010 more
people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and throughout Japan said they “can’t forgive the
bombing even now” than those who said “it was unavoidable,” but in 2015, the
proportion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents saying they “can’t forgive the
bombing even now” decreased to a level roughly equal to those saying “it was
unavoidable” in those two cities.
Where nuclear weapons are concerned, approximately 80 percent of people
both throughout Japan and in Hiroshima and Nagasaki replied that it is “not
acceptable to either possess or use nuclear weapons.” But their views on the
prospects for nuclear disarmament were pessimistic, with around 70 percent
believing that nuclear war could break out. Over 60 percent in all areas believed
that the ravages of the atomic bombs and the situation of the hibakusha (persons
who were exposed to radiation from the bombing) have not been sufficiently
conveyed. Today, as surviving hibakusha enter advanced age, the issue to be
confronted is how to pass on the memory of the atomic bombings.
1. Introduction
In his Peace Declaration at the 2015 Peace Memorial Ceremony, Hiroshima mayor Matsui
Kazumi characterized nuclear weapons as “the absolute evil and ultimate inhumanity.” Mayor
Matsui called on the people of the world to renew their determination to eliminate nuclear
weapons and accelerate the movement toward abolition of nuclear weapons.
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9, the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
By the end of December 1945, 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 73,000 in Nagasaki had died.
Seventy years later, in 2015, the average age of hibakusha, who personally know the tragedy
of the bombing, exceeded 80 years for the first time. As time goes by, opportunities to hear
directly from hibakusha about their experiences are dwindling, and one wonders how
Japanese, citizens of the only country ever to have been the target of atomic bombs, feel about
perpetuating the memory of these events and what they think about the current situation
surrounding nuclear weapons. To learn more, NHK conducted a telephone survey among
people aged 20 and over in three areas, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and throughout Japan, in June
2015.2
NHK began conducting opinion surveys on the atomic bombings in the city of
Nagasaki in 1971 and the city of Hiroshima in 1972 using the face-to-face interview method.
Beginning in 1975, NHK has conducted a survey in Hiroshima every five years and in
Nagasaki every ten years, except in 2005.3 But the survey method was changed from
face-to-face interviews to a telephone survey in 2010, and the same method was used in the
2015 survey (Figure 1). Accordingly, the time series analysis in this paper will be mainly
compared to the 2010 survey, but responses to identical questions from surveys from 2005
and earlier, for which a different survey method was used, will also be analyzed with that
factor taken into consideration.
Figure 1. Outline of Survey (2010, 2015)
Hiroshima Nagasaki Nationwide
2015
Period Friday, June 26 to Sunday, June 28, 2015
Method Telephone survey (random digit dialing)
Target Men and women aged 20 and over
Sample 1,973 persons 1,720 1,781
Valid responses (%) 1,130 persons(57.3%) 1,005(58.4%) 1,024(57.5%)
2010
Period Friday, June 25 to Sunday, June 27, 2010
Method Telephone survey (random digit dialing)
Target Men and women aged 20 and over
Sample 1,977 persons 2,089 1,720
Valid responses (%)） 1,276 persons（64.5%）
1,373（65.7%） 1,030（59.9%）
2. Focus of the Analysis
This paper focuses on analyzing differences in awareness of the atomic bombings and nuclear
weapons depending on whether respondents lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or nationwide,
their age, and whether respondents had actually been exposed in the bombings. Below are
analyses of personal experience of the bombings based on area of residence, and according to
length of residence in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
2 Throughout this paper “Hiroshima” and “Nagasaki” refer to the cities, not the prefectures, unless otherwise
noted. 3 Earlier studies quoted in the text are outlined in the table at the end of the text. For the 2010 survey, see Figure
1 and Nishi Kumiko, “Genbaku toka kara 65 nen, Kienu kaku no kyoi: ‘Genbaku ishiki chosa’ kara” (Sixty-five
Years After the Atomic Bombings: The Continuing Threat of Atomic Weapons, from the Public Opinion Survey
on Atomic Bombs), Hoso kenkyu to chosa [NHK Monthly Report on Broadcast Research], October 2010.
(1) Regional Differences in Personal Experience of the Bombings
Respondents were given three answer choices to describe their experience to the bombings: “I
was personally exposed in the bombing,” “I was not personally exposed in the bombing but
people close to me were,” and “I was not exposed in the bombing and neither were people
close to me.” Four percent of Hiroshima respondents, 7 percent in Nagasaki, and 1 percent
nationwide answered, “I was personally exposed in the bombing,” down from 8 percent in
Hiroshima and 18 percent in Nagasaki in 2010.4
Meanwhile, 48 percent in Hiroshima, 52 percent in Nagasaki, and 9 percent nationwide
answered,“people close to me were exposed in the bombing.” Combined with responses about
whether they had personally suffered radiation exposure, over half in Hiroshima (52 percent)
and Nagasaki (59 percent) answered that they had been personally affected, compared to 10
percent nationwide.
By age group, even among young people in their 20s and 30s in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki about half answered that “people close to me were exposed in the bombing” (Figure
2). By comparison, the proportion of responses nationwide saying that someone close to them
had suffered exposure was much lower: even among those aged 70 and over, only 14 percent,
the largest proportion, gave this answer.
The number of respondents saying they had suffered exposure was small—46 in
Hiroshima, 72 in Nagasaki, and 7 nationwide, and therefore for the purpose of analysis those
numbers were combined with those of respondents answering that someone close to them had
suffered radiation exposure.
Figure 2. Radiation Exposure in the Bombings (2015, by Age Group)
4 “Persons close to me” is not defined and could include acquaintances or others. According to figures released
by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare at the end of March 2015, holders of special booklets for
hibakusha—entitling them to health care and other services—numbered 58,933 persons in Hiroshima and 34,199
persons in Nagasaki. Calculated as a proportion of the population aged 20 and over, this means that 6 percent of
people in Hiroshima and 9 percent of people in Nagasaki fall into this group, proportions slightly lower than
those in the survey.
Someone close to me was exposed in the bombing
Someone close to me was exposed in the bombing
I was exposed in the bombing
I was exposed in the bombing
46%
45
53
60
44
62
63
62
40 28 19
2 2
50
Hiroshima
20s and 30s
40s
50s
60s
70 and over
Nagasaki
(2) Number of Years Residing in Hiroshima or Nagasaki
To see whether attitudes differed depending on length of residence in Hiroshima or
Nagasaki,5 respondents in those cities were asked how long they had lived there. In Nagasaki,
42 percent of residents said “I have been living here since birth,” higher than the 36 percent in
Hiroshima who replied the same. About 10 percent in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki said that
they had been living in the respective cities for “50 years or more,” but 20 percent of
Hiroshima residents and 15 percent of Nagasaki residents said they had lived in their cities for
“over 30 years to under 50 years,” while 29 percent in Hiroshima and 23 percent in Nagasaki
said they had been living in their city for “less than 30 years.” In both cases, more Hiroshima
residents reported having lived in that city for those respective lengths of time.
3. Waning Memories: Differences between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and
Nationwide
(1) Discussion of the Atomic Bombings
Respondents were asked how often they usually discussed the atomic bombings with family,
work colleagues, neighbors or friends. Five percent in Hiroshima, 6 percent in Nagasaki, and
2 percent throughout Japan responded that they did so “often” and 26 percent, 29 percent, and
20 percent, respectively, said they did so “sometimes.” In both cases, larger proportions of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents did so compared to the whole country (Figure 3). As for
those who “never” discussed the subject, percentages were 24 percent in Hiroshima, 23
percent in Nagasaki, and 38 percent nationwide.
Compared to 2010, fewer people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki said they discussed (total
for “often” and “sometimes”) the issue, while the proportion of those who did not do so (total
for “seldom” and “never”) rose from 63 percent to 68 percent in Hiroshima and from 56
percent to 65 percent in Nagasaki,6 making up roughly two-thirds of people in the two cities.
Throughout Japan 78 percent said they did not discuss the atomic bombings, almost the same
level as five years ago.
5 Includes years of residence in districts subsequently amalgamated into the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
6 When results are tabulated, actual numbers are added up and recalculated as percentages and therefore may not
coincide with percentages simply added up (same applies below).
Figure 3. Frequency of Discussing the Atomic Bombings
Looking at changes over the long term, in 1975 half of people in Hiroshima said that
they had discussed the atomic bombings with others, but this proportion had dropped to 37
percent in 1990 (Figure 4). This percentage remained largely unchanged until 2005, but
decreased since 2010 when the survey method was changed.
Figure 4. Those Answering that They Discuss the Atomic Bombings (Hiroshima)
5
5
7
6
2
2
31%
26
37
29
19
20
41
44
37
42
39
40
22
24
18
23
40
38
0
1
0
0
0
0
2010
2010
2010
43 35 33
29 28 31 31 26
6
8 5
4 3 5 5
5
0
20
40
60
1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
(%)
Face-to-face interview
Telephone
survey
Often
Some times
Yes No
2015
2015
2015
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
Often Sometimes Seldom Never
Don’t know, No answer
Let us now look at a comparison with results from five years ago by age group and
gender regarding a drop in the proportion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents who say they
have discussed the issue. By age group, in 2010, the only age group in which the majority
discussed the issue was those aged 70 and over in the case of Hiroshima, among whom 53
percent had talked about the atomic bombings. In the 2015 survey, however, the proportion
saying so in this age group dropped to 39 percent, and the difference among age groups has
narrowed (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Those Answering that They Discuss the Atomic Bombings (by Age Group)
Meanwhile, in 2010 over 50 percent of Nagasaki residents aged 60 and over answered
that they discussed the atomic bombings, but even in this age group the proportion dropped to
38 percent in 2015, eliminating the difference with younger age groups. The fact that fewer
older people, who were those communicating their experiences, are talking about the atomic
bombings is weakening the passing on of the events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Looking at the male/female ratio, in Hiroshima 27 percent of men and 34 percent of
women, and 28 percent of men and 39 percent of women in Nagasaki, answered that they
have talked about the atomic bombings. In both cities, a higher proportion of women have
done so. Compared to five years ago, the proportion for Hiroshima is almost unchanged, but
in Nagasaki fewer people, both men and women, are talking about the bombings.
In order to examine differences regarding exposure in the bombing, respondents who
said they talked about the bombings were divided into two groups: those personally exposed
or close to someone who was, and an “others” group consisting of those who had neither been
personally exposed nor knew anyone who had been (Figure 6). Compared to 37 percent in
Hiroshima and 40 percent in Nagasaki who had or knew someone who had suffered exposure,
the figures for the “other” group were 26 percent in Hiroshima and 29 percent in Nagasaki.
23
32
29
39
53
29
29
35
55 54
25 30
34
31
39
27
39
31
38 38
0
20
40
60
20s
and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70s
and over
20s
and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70s
and over
2010
2015
Hiroshima Nagasaki
(%)
Thus the proportion who had suffered personal exposure or who knew someone close to them
who had was higher, the same result as in 2010. However, the proportion of Nagasaki
residents who had personally been exposed or knew someone close to them who had been
declined from 51 percent in 2010 to 40 percent in 2015.
Looking at the results of the 2015 survey in terms of length of residence in Hiroshima
or Nagasaki, the proportion of those who said they discussed the bombings was high among
Hiroshima residents who had been living there for “50 years or more” (47 percent) and among
Nagasaki residents living in that city for “over 30 to under 50 years” (44 percent).
Figure 6. Respondents Who Have Discussed the Atomic Bombings
(Based on Personal Experience)
Hiroshima Nagasaki
Personal exposure to the bombing or
know someone close who was exposed
Others
Personal exposure to the bombing or
know someone close who was exposed
Others
2015 （Parameter） (n = 586) (n=479) (n=594) (n=330)
％ 37 ＞ 26 40 ＞ 29
2010 ％ 42 ＞ 29 51 ＞ 32
（Parameter） (n=764) (n=461) (n=902) (n=372)
Note: The inequality sign shows the examination results after comparing the numbers on either side, with >
indicating that the number on the left is greater (confidence rate 95 percent)
(2) Three Out of Ten Could Give Dates of the Bombings
Respondents were asked to give the day, month, and year of the atomic bombings in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a free answer segment of the questionnaire.7 The proportion of
those who gave the correct date for the bombing of Hiroshima was 69 percent in Hiroshima,
the largest proportion, followed by 50 percent in Nagasaki, but only 30 percent nationwide.
These percentages are almost the same as in the 2010 survey.
Focusing on long-term trends among Hiroshima residents who answered correctly, the
proportion of those answering correctly remained largely unchanged from 1975 (77 percent)
to 2005 (74 percent) (Figure 7). The proportion has remained around 70 percent since 2010,
when the survey method was changed.
On the other hand, the proportion of those who gave the correct date for the bombing of
Nagasaki in 2015 was 59 percent in Nagasaki, the largest proportion, followed by 54 percent
in Hiroshima, and 26 percent nationwide. Throughout Japan, only 30 percent or fewer were
able to give the correct dates for the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Compared to five
years ago, there were no significant changes in the proportions of Hiroshima and nationwide
respondents giving the correct dates, but the proportion in Nagasaki dropped from 64 percent.
Regarding past changes in answer trends in Nagasaki over the life of the survey, the
proportion of those who could correctly name the date of the Nagasaki bombing continued
rising, going from 62 percent in 1975 to 90 percent in 1995 (Figure 8), but has dropped back
to about 60 percent in the past five years.
7 For “year,” “Showa 20,” “1945,” and “the year the war ended” were all accepted as valid.
Figure 7. Proportions Who Could Give the Correct Date of the Hiroshima Bombing
(Hiroshima)
Note: Not surveyed in year for which no data is shown (same applies below).
Figure 8. Proportions Who Could Give the Correct Date of the Nagasaki Bombing
(Nagasaki)
In Hiroshima by age group, whereas 81 percent of those in their 60s could give the
correct date of the Hiroshima bombing, only 61 percent among those in their 20s and 30s
could do so (Figure 9).
In Nagasaki by age group, 67 percent of those in their 60s were able to give the correct
date of the Nagasaki bombing, but that figure was less than half (46 percent) among those in
their 20s and 30s. Compared to five years ago, the only age-based change among people in
62
74
90 64
59
0
20
40
60
80
100
1975 1985 1995 2010 2015
77 77 78 80 77 74 70 69
0
20
40
60
80
100
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2010 2015
(％)
Face-to-face
interview
Telephone
survey
Face-to-face
interview
Telephone
survey
(％)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the drop from 67 percent to 57 percent among those aged 70 and
over in Nagasaki who could give the correct date of the bombing of that city.
Looking at the proportion of correct answers among people in Hiroshima based on
whether they had personally suffered exposure or knew someone close to them who had, 75
percent of those who had personally or had someone close to them who had suffered exposure
gave the correct date, while the proportion giving the correct answer to the date of the
Nagasaki bombing was 65 percent among those in Nagasaki who personally suffered
exposure or knew someone close to them who had. These percentages in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki remain largely unchanged from five years ago. A significant proportion of even
those people were not able to answer correctly.
Figure 9. Those Who Could Give the Correct Date of the Bombings
(2015, by Age Group)
(3) Fewer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “Cannot Forgive” the Bombings
To measure how Japanese today feel about the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki by the United States, respondents were given two answer choices: “can’t forgive
even now” and “it was unavoidable.” In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 43 percent and 46 percent,
respectively, and 49 percent nationwide felt that they “can’t forgive even now,” while 44
percent in Hiroshima, 41 percent in Nagasaki, and 40 percent nationwide believed that “it was
unavoidable” (Figure 10).
Five years ago, people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and nationwide who felt that they
“can’t forgive even now” outnumbered those who thought “it was unavoidable.” But the
proportion of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saying they “can’t forgive even now” has
decreased to the same level as for those saying “it was unavoidable.”
61
69 67
81
65
46
63 62 67
57
0
20
40
60
80
100
20s and 30s 40s 50s 60s 70 and over
(%) In Hiroshima, those giving the date of the bombing of Hiroshima
In Nagasaki, those giving the date of the bombing of Nagasaki
Figure 10. Feelings about the Atomic Bombings
Examining the changes in Hiroshima over the past 40 years (Figure 11), up to 1980 a
larger proportion felt that they “can’t forgive even now” than those who thought “it was
unavoidable.” Proportions stayed roughly the same for both the former and the latter from
1990, after the end of the Cold War, to 2000, but the proportion of those feeling they “can’t
forgive even now” increased in 2005 while the proportion of those saying that “it was
unavoidable” dropped. The gap widened. This period coincided with a time of rising
international tensions, with the terrorist attacks of September 2001 in the United States,
American bombing in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. In 2010, a larger proportion felt that
they “can’t forgive even now” than “it was unavoidable,” but in 2015 the two answers were
given by equal proportions.
Figure 11. Feelings about the Bombings (Hiroshima)
64 67
48 52
48
56
31 30
45 41
45
36
48
43 42
44
0
20
40
60
80
1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
48%
43
50
46
53
49
42
44
39
41
38
40
3
4
4
5
3
3
7
9
8
9
6
8
2010
2010
2010
Can’t forgive even now
It was unavoidable
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
2015
2015
2015
Can’t forgive even now It was unavoidable
Other
Don’t know, No answer
Face-to-face interview
Telephone survey
(%)
By age group compared to five years ago, in 2010 the proportion of Hiroshima
residents in their 20s and 30s and 70 and over, and of Nagasaki residents in their 40s and 70
and over answering “can’t forgive even now” was larger than the proportion of those saying
“it was unavoidable.” But in 2015 fewer Hiroshima residents in their 20s and 30s and 70 and
over, and Nagasaki residents 70 and over, answered “can’t forgive even now” (Figure 12),
and there is now no significant difference in the respective proportions of those in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in all age groups who say they “can’t forgive even now” and “it was
unavoidable.”
Figure 12. “Can’t Forgive Even Now” (by Age Group)
In 2015, the proportions of people in all age groups in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saying
they “can’t forgive even now” and “it was unavoidable” were roughly equal. In contrast, a
larger proportion of those in their 20s and 30s throughout Japan believed that “it was
unavoidable,” whereas a larger proportion of those in their 60s and over felt that they “can’t
forgive even now” (Figure 13). People in their 20s and 30s saying they “can’t forgive even
now” were a minority at 35 percent, but in the older age groups this proportion topped 50
percent among people in their 50s and stood at 56 percent among those 70 and over. As for “it
was unavoidable,” more than half of those in their 20s and 30s felt that way, at 56 percent, but
this proportion declined in direct proportion to increasing age, with only 34 percent of those
70 and over feeling the same way.
53
44
48
42
53 49
54
48
51 56
40 42
49 43
42 39
49
49
46 45
0
20
40
60
20s
and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70 and
over
20s
and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70 and
over
2010
2015
(％) Hiroshima Nagasaki
Figure 13. Feelings about the Bombings (2015, Nationwide, by Age Group)
Examining whether attitudes toward the atomic bombings differ depending on personal
exposure in the bombing, in Hiroshima there was little change compared to 2010. Even
among people who had suffered exposure or know someone who had and the “other” group
who had not been exposed and did not know anyone close to them who had, the proportions
of those saying “can’t forgive even now” and “it was unavoidable” were both in the 40
percent range.
In Nagasaki, on the other hand, the proportions of both those who had personally
suffered exposure or knew someone close to them who had and the “others,” who had not or
did not know anyone who had, were larger for “can’t forgive even now.” But in 2015, the
proportion among “others” who felt they “can’t forgive even now” has fallen, and only among
those who had been personally exposed in the bombing or knew someone close to them who
had was the proportion of those feeling “can’t forgive even now” (48 percent) larger than for
“it was unavoidable” (39 percent).
Various views on the results of this question probing attitudes toward the bombings
have been offered. Hiroshima University Graduate School Professor Hiroshi Nunokawa,
whose field is modern Japanese history, thinks that in the midst of a changing world situation
there still is a firm belief that the nuclear deterrent prevents war and this may link to the
answer among Japanese that dropping atomic bombs on Japan was unavoidable.8
On the other hand, when asked by the author about the decline in the proportion of
people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who feel that the bombing “can’t be forgiven even now,”
clinical psychologist Akiko Mikamo, who wrote a book about her father’s experience in the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima cautioned that this result can’t simply be interpreted to mean
that more people nowadays have become forgiving. She pointed out that the major reason for
the decline in those who believe that the bombing can’t be forgiven is that there are now
fewer hibakusha and individuals who were influenced by them in some way. And she
attributes the drop in the number of older persons who feel that the bombing “can’t be
forgiven even today,” to the fact that the event took place a long time ago and that now that
those people have grown older, more of them just want to live quietly and at peace rather than
dwell on their difficulties in the past.
8 NHK News Web, August 3, 2015 broadcast.
35
43
51 55 56 56
43 40
35 34
0
20
40
60
20s
and30s
40s 50s 60s 70
andover
(%)
Can’t forgive even now
It was unavoidable
(4) Support for Hibakusha Evaluated More Negatively Nationwide
Respondents were asked whether they thought that the central government and local
authorities were providing adequate health care and living support to hibakusha. Among
people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 16 percent in Hiroshima and 23 percent in Nagasaki
answered that assistance was “adequate,” and a further 40 percent and 36 percent, respectively,
thought that assistance was “more or less adequate,” higher proportions than for nationwide
responses (Figure 14). While only 25 percent nationwide felt that assistance to hibakusha was
“adequate” (total for “adequate” and “more or less adequate”), a majority of people in
Hiroshima (56 percent) and Nagasaki (58 percent) believed that this was so. On the other
hand, 32 percent in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki thought that assistance was “inadequate”
(total for “not really adequate” and “inadequate”) compared to 55 percent nationwide.
Compared to 2010, proportions who believe assistance is inadequate declined, from 37
percent in Nagasaki and 66 percent nationwide, but the proportion of those who think
assistance is adequate has not increased in Hiroshima, or in Nagasaki or nationwide.
Through the efforts of hibakusha themselves, measures provided by the central
government to assist hibakusha have gradually expanded since the law on medical care for
atomic bomb survivors was enacted in 1957. Examining changes in the time series, while over
70 percent in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1975 believed that assistance to hibakusha was
“inadequate,” that proportion has gradually dropped (Figure 15), although it should be noted
that even now one-third of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki believe that assistance is
“inadequate.” As far as assistance to hibakusha is concerned, those who were not officially
recognized as suffering from radiation sickness are still bringing lawsuits against the
government, arguing that the criteria for official recognition are too strict. Haste is needed in
deciding what to do in the case of the hibakusha, who are now of increasingly advanced age.
Looking at assistance from the perspective of individuals who were “personally
exposed in the bombings,” the number of such respondents was small (Hiroshima, 46 persons;
Nagasaki, 72 persons), but in Hiroshima 24 percent of those who said they were exposed
believe that assistance is “not really adequate” and 11 percent think it is “inadequate,”
compared to 42 percent in Nagasaki who think assistance is “not really adequate” and 7
percent who believe it is “inadequate.”
Figure 14. How People Evaluate Assistance for Hibakusha (2015)
16%
23
5
40
36
20
25
26
38
7
6
17
11
10
19
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
Adequate More or less adequate Not really adequate
Inadequate
Don’t know, No answer
Adequate Inadequate
Figure 15. Assistance for Hibakusha Evaluated as “Insufficient”
As far as assistance to hibakusha is concerned, an issue peculiar to Nagasaki is the
designation of “irradiated areas.” The irradiated areas of Nagasaki determined by the central
government are based on the administrative units centering on the former city area of
Nagasaki at the time of the bombing and do not necessarily correspond to distance from the
blast hypocenter. This is why, even though individuals might have been exposed to radiation
at equal distances from the hypocenter, some people have been designated hibakusha while
others were classified as hibaku-taikensha (lit., “those who had experienced the atomic
bombing”), and there are significant differences in the medical allowances that the two groups
49 48 48 37 39 36
28 25
23 15
8
10 7 6
6 7
0
20
40
60
80
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2005 2010 2015
(%) Hiroshima
Face-to-face interview
Telephone survey
Inadequate
Not really
adequate
(%) Nagasaki
Face-to-face interview
Telephone survey
Inadequate
Not really
adequate
receive. Some hibaku-taikensha have campaigned for expansion of the irradiated areas and
lawsuits continue even today.9 Kyushu University Graduate School associate professor Akiko
Naono, who specializes in the study of hibakusha, said in an interview with the author that the
reason many of those in Nagasaki who were exposed in the atomic bombing believe that
assistance to hibakusha is inadequate is that despite the recognition of the issue by the courts,
the discrepancy in levels of assistance still has not been rectified.
4. Nuclear Disarmament: Ideal and Reality
(1) The Majority Reject Possession or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Respondents were given three answer choices when asked how they felt about atomic bombs
and other nuclear weaponry (Figure 16). Around 80 percent in all areas (Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
and nationwide) answered that it was “not acceptable to either possess or use nuclear
weapons,” 10 percent allowed that it was “acceptable to possess nuclear weapons but not to
use them,” and only a very small percentage believed that “it’s acceptable to use nuclear
weapons when necessary.” The only change compared to five years ago was that the
proportion of those believing that “it’s acceptable to use nuclear weapons when necessary”
dropped from 3 percent to 1 percent.
Figure 16. Is It Acceptable to Possess and Use Nuclear Weapons? (2015)
(2) The Majority Are Pessimistic about the Prospects for Nuclear Reduction
Today there are over 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world. Respondents were given four
answer choices when asked what they thought would happen to nuclear weapons in the future
(Figure 17). The largest proportion in all areas thought that “their number will decline
compared to now, but not significantly” (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both 46 percent;
9 In a lawsuit in which a group of people in the city of Nagasaki and elsewhere who “had suffered radiation
exposure to the bombing” sued the government to allow them, as hibakusha, to receive free medical treatment
for cancer and other diseases, the Nagasaki District Court made its ruling on February 2016 that some of the
plaintiffs were hibakusha.
2
2
1
17%
13
14
78
79
81
3
6
4
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
Acceptable to use when necessary
Acceptable to possess but not to use
Not acceptable to either possess or use nuclear weapons
Don’t know, No answer
nationwide 45 percent), followed by “their number will remain unchanged or will in fact
increase” (Hiroshima 32 percent, Nagasaki 31 percent, nationwide 32 percent). On the other
hand, only 2 percent in all areas believed that “nuclear weapons can be eliminated entirely,”
and 13 percent in Hiroshima, 11 percent in Nagasaki, and 12 percent nationwide thought that
“they cannot be eliminated entirely, but their number will be greatly reduced.” These results
show that the majority of people in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nationwide were
pessimistic about the prospects for reduction of nuclear weaponry.
Figure 17. Likelihood of Nuclear Disarmament (2015)
(3) Seventy Percent Believe that There Is a Risk of Nuclear Warfare
Respondents were asked whether they thought that nuclear warfare might occur somewhere in
the world in the near future. Twenty-four percent in Hiroshima, 23 percent in Nagasaki, and
21 percent nationwide answered that “there is a strong risk,” while 46 percent in all areas
answered that “there is some risk” (Figure 18). The proportion of those in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki who said that “there is a risk” (total for “there is a strong risk” and “there is some
risk”) was 70 percent, almost the same level as five years ago. By contrast, the proportion of
those nationwide who answered that “there is a risk” was 66 percent, down from 72 percent
five years ago, but the fact is that a significant proportion of people in all areas feel there is a
risk of nuclear warfare occurring.
Figure 18. Risk of Nuclear Warfare (2015)
2
2
2
13%
11
12
46
46
45
32
31
32
8
10
9
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
Nuclear weapons can be eliminated entirely They cannot be eliminated
entirely, but their number will be greatly reduced
Their number will decline compared to now, but not significantly
Their number will remain unchanged or will in fact increase
Don’t know, No answer
24%
23
21
46
46
46
18
16
21
5
6
5
7
8
7
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
There is a strong risk
There is some risk
There is not much risk
There is no risk at all
Don’t know, No answer
(4) U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella” “Not Necessary”
Respondents were given four answer choices regarding whether they believe that relying on
the United States’ nuclear deterrence (the U.S. “nuclear umbrella”) is necessary for Japan’s
security (Figure 19). In all areas, over 40 percent, the largest proportion, answered that the
U.S. nuclear umbrella is “not necessary either now or in the future,” followed by around 20
percent saying that it is “necessary now but not in the future.” On the other hand, about 10
percent each answered “necessary both now and in the future” and “not necessary now but
necessary in the future.” Totaling the proportion of those who believe a nuclear deterrent of
some kind is needed (total for “necessary now,” “necessary in the future,” and “necessary
both now and in the future”), about 40 percent in all areas think it’s necessary to have a
nuclear deterrent, a proportion about equal to those who believe it’s “not necessary either now
or in the future.” The results show that opinion is split about the need for the United States’
nuclear deterrent.
But compared to 2010, the proportion of those in all areas saying “not necessary either
now or in the future” rose from the 30 percent range to the 40 percent range, and the
proportion saying “necessary both now and in the future” fell from around 20 percent to
around10 percent.
Figure 19. Need for the U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella”
Examining the response “not necessary either now or in the future” by age group, compared
to 2010, the proportion of those giving this answer in Hiroshima rose across all age groups
19%
13
19
11
21
10
30
23
22
20
25
19
8
11
9
10
10
9
32
41
38
44
35
49
11
11
13
15
10
13
2010
2010
2010
Necessary both now and in the future
Necessary now but not in the future
Not necessary now but necessary in the future
Not necessary either now or in the future
Don’t know, No answer
2015
2015
2015
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
40s and over, and now the 40 percent range in all those age groups (Figure 20). Nationwide,
the proportion of those giving this answer rose in the 40s age group and among those in their
60s and over, leveling out age-based differences. In Nagasaki, approximately 40 percent in all
age groups gave this response, unchanged from 2010.
Figure 20. The U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella” Is “Not Necessary Either Now or in the Future” (2015)
By gender, more women than men in all areas said that the nuclear umbrella was “not
necessary either now or in the future” (Figure 21). Among women, about half in all areas said
the same. On the other hand, more men than women said “necessary now but not in the future”
and “necessary both now and in the future.” Among Hiroshima and Nagasaki men, in
particular, over 30 percent said that the nuclear umbrella was “necessary now but not in the
future,” about the same proportion as those who said it was “not necessary either now or in
the future.”
Figure 21. Need for the U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella”
(2015, by Gender; in descending order for the three areas overall)
(%)
Hiroshima Nagasaki Nationwide
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Not necessary either now or in the future
32 ＜ 47 38 ＜ 47 42 ＜ 54
Necessary now but not in the future
36 ＞ 16 32 ＞ 14 27 ＞ 13
Necessary both now and in the future
17 ＞ 11 16 ＞ 9 17 ＞ 6
Not necessary now but necessary in the future
10 12 7 ＜ 12 8 10
Note: The inequality sign shows the examination results after comparing the numbers on either side, with
> indicating that the number of men is greater and < indicating that the number of women is greater
(confidence rate 95 percent).
39 36
29 27 32
43
37 39
30 33
43 45 44 40 41
51 48
46
55 52
0
20
40
60
20s and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70 and over
20s and 30s
40s 50s 60s 70 and over
2010
2015
(%) Hiroshima Nationwide
Figure 22 compares differences in attitudes toward nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki depending on whether people feel that they “cannot forgive the bombings even now”
or that “it was unavoidable.” In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more people who feel they “cannot
forgive the bombings even now” than those who think “it was unavoidable” believe both that
it is “not acceptable to possess or use nuclear weapons” and that the U.S. nuclear umbrella is
“not necessary either now or in the future.” But even among people who feel that the atomic
bombings were “unavoidable,” over 70 percent do not think it acceptable to possess or use
nuclear weapons. And while the proportion of those who believe that the nuclear umbrella is
“not necessary either now or in the future” was in the 30 percent range, this represented the
largest proportion.
Figure 22. Acceptability of Possessing and Using Nuclear Weapons / Need for the U.S. “Nuclear Umbrella” (2015, by Attitude Toward the Atomic Bombings)
Hiroshima Nagasaki
Cannot forgive
even now
It was unavoidable
Cannot forgive
even now
It was unavoidable
(Parameter)
(n=487) (499) (459)
(410)
Acceptability of
possessing and using
nuclear weapons
Acceptable to use when necessary
1% 2 1 ＜ 4
Acceptable to possess but not
to use 14 ＜ 23 10 ＜ 19
Not acceptable to either
possess or use nuclear
weapons
83 ＞ 73 86 ＞ 74
Need for the “nuclear
umbrella”
Necessary both now and in the
future 10 ＜ 18 9 ＜ 16
Necessary now but not in the
future 23 24 19 24
Not necessary now but
necessary in the future
9 ＜ 14 10 11
Not necessary either now or in the future
49 ＞ 35 52 ＞ 38
Note: The inequality sign shows the examination results after comparing the numbers on either side, with >
indicating that the number on the left is greater and < indicating that the number on the right is greater
(confidence rate 95 percent).
(5) The Facts of the Atomic Bombings Not Conveyed
Respondents were asked about the extent to which the damages from the atomic bombings
and the current situation of hibakusha have been disseminated throughout the world. Three
percent for Hiroshima, 4 percent for Nagasaki, and 4 percent nationwide believed that the
situation “has been adequately conveyed.” Taken together with those who answered that the
situation “has been conveyed to some extent,” only 34 percent for Hiroshima, 33 percent for
Nagasaki, and 36 percent nationwide believed this was so (Figure 23). Conversely, over half
in all areas believed that “the situation has not been conveyed very well.” Overall, those who
answered “not conveyed” (total for “not conveyed very well” and “not conveyed at all”)
accounted for 64 percent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—both an increase from 59 percent in
2010—and 61 percent nationwide, about the same as in 2010.
Figure 23. Dissemination of the Facts of the Atomic Bombings (2015)
5. How the Memory of the Atomic Bombings Can be Perpetuated
Respondents were asked what they thought was the most important means of passing down
the tragedy of the atomic bombings to future generations. The five answer choices are shown
in Figure 24. In descending order, the answers most often given in Hiroshima and nationwide
were “teach the subject more actively in schools” and “continue keeping video or written
records of hibakusha testimony,” both given by around 35 to 39 percent of those respondents.
In Nagasaki, a lower proportion (31 percent) selected “teach the subject more actively in
schools,” while 37 percent selected “continue to keep records, either on video or in writing, of
hibakusha testimony,” the largest proportion in all areas. Only 1 to 2 percent in all areas
answered that “no need to pass on the facts to future generations.”
By age group, older people—49 percent of those in their 60s and 43 percent of those 70
and over in Hiroshima, and 41 percent of those in their 60s in Nagasaki—considered “teach
the subject more actively in schools” important. In contrast, relatively younger
respondents—45 percent of those in their 20s and 30s and 46 percent of those in their 40s in
Hiroshima, 51 percent of those in their 20s and 30s and 48 percent of those in their 40s in
Nagasaki, and 49 percent of those in their 40s nationwide—thought that “continue keeping
video or written records of hibakusha testimony” was vital. Preserving materials helps pass
3
4
4
31%
29
32
57
56
52
7
8
9
2
3
3
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Nationwide
Adequately conveyed
Conveyed to some extent
Not conveyed very well
Not conveyed at all
Don’t know, No answer
down the memories in various ways, and younger people may strongly believe that recording
testimony directly from hibakusha while they are still alive is a good way of doing so.
Figure 24. Passing on Memories of the Atomic Bombings (2015)
(%) Hiroshima Nagasaki Nationwide
Teach the subject more actively in schools 36 31 39
Continue keeping video or written records of hibakusha testimony
34 37 36
Increase the number of people giving oral testimony to pass on the events
15 16 11
Collect and exhibit more bombing-related artifacts, including personal possessions of hibakusha
3 3 3
No need to pass on the facts to future generations 1 2 1
Other 4 3 2
6. Conclusion
Out of respondents to the 2015 survey in Hiroshima 46, in Nagasaki 72, and nationwide 7 said
they had been directly exposed in the atomic bombings, so it is clear that it will be very
difficult to survey hibakusha in the future.
The survey results show the differences are large between people in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki on the one hand and those nationwide on the other in the proportions of those able
to give the correct dates of the bombings and their usual degree of interest in the matter. The
survey also indicates that the events are fading from awareness even in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It is no longer possible to rely solely on those directly involved to pass on
memories of the bombings.
Many Japanese oppose nuclear weapons, given Japan’s experience at the close of
World War II, but nuclear disarmament is by no means assured. The 2015 Review Conference
of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) exposed deep
divisions between the nuclear-weapon states and the non-nuclear-weapon states, and the
parties were not able to reach agreement on the final draft document. It was also revealed that
two months earlier, in March, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had been ready to use
nuclear weapons to back Russia’s annexation of Crimea. This and other developments on the
global stage create a dilemma among the Japanese public, who fear nuclear warfare and,
while rejecting nuclear weaponry, cannot completely oppose the reality of the protection
afforded by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
But there are also signs of change. In April 2009, speaking in Prague, U.S. President
Barack Obama said that eliminating nuclear weapons is “fundamental to the security of our
nations and to the peace of the world.” Although the state of the world today is far from that
ideal, the American ambassador to Japan began attending the peace commemoration
ceremony in Hiroshima the following year. Further, in a U.S. public opinion survey10
to mark
10
Telephone survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in January and February 2015 among persons aged
18 and over in the United States and Japan.
the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II, 56 percent of respondents answered
that the United States “had been justified” in using atomic bombs, but when responses were
examined by age group, younger people showed a different attitude than their elders, with 47
percent of those aged 18 to 29 saying that the bombing was justifiable versus 70 percent of
those 65 and over who held this opinion.
Conditions in the world are increasingly unstable, and it is necessary to let the world
know of the tragedy of the atomic bombings and the radiation-related illnesses that victims
have suffered and raise attention to the inhumanity of nuclear weaponry. What can be done to
preserve and pass on the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ensure that no one ever
becomes a hibakusha again? Japan, as the only country to have suffered a nuclear bomb attack,
has a special role to play and must continue to deal with the issue of how to convey the
tragedy of the atomic bombs.
Sources:
Naono, Akiko. Genbaku taiken to sengo Nihon: Kioku no keisei to keisho [The Atomic Bomb Experience
and Postwar Japan: Forming and Passing on Memories], Iwanami Shoten. 2015.
Nagai, Hideaki. “Nihonjin no kaku ishiki kozo: Sengo 30-nen kan no yoronchosa shiryo no bunseki kara”
[How Japanese Think of Nuclear Weapons: An Analysis of Public Opinion Surveys in the 30 Years After
the War], in Hiroshima heiwa kagaku [Hiroshima Peace Science], Vol. 1, 1977.
Surveys prior to 2005 mentioned in the text
(translated vertically, column by column)
Survey Name Survey AreaSurvey
MethodTarget
Valid
Responses(%)
Hiroshima730
persons(81.1%)
Nagasaki 684 (76.0%)
Public Opinion Survey on
the Atomic Bombings1980
May 31
(Sat.)–June
1 (Sun.)
Hiroshima 900 615 (68.3%)
Hiroshima 626 (69.6%)
Nagasaki 523 (58.1%)
Opinion Survey of
Hiroshima Residents in the
45th Year after the Atomic
Bombings
1990
June 2
(Sat.)–3
(Sun.)
Hiroshima 900 605 (67.2%)
Hiroshima 610 (67.8%)
Nagasaki 597 (66.3%)
Nationwide 2,000 1,440 (72.0%)
Opinion Survey of
Hiroshima Residents on the
Atomic Bombings
2000
June 30
(Fri.)–July
2 (Sun.)
Hiroshima 900 636 (70.7%)
June 17
(Fri.)–19
(Sun.)
Hiroshima 900 516 (57.3%)
June 9
(Thurs.)–
12 (Sun.)
Nationwide 2,000 1,375 (68.8%)
Survey Period Sample
Persons
age 20
and over
VotersHiroshima and Nagasaki
Residents’ Attitudes toward
the Atomic Bombings in the
40th Year after the
Bombings
1985
June 15
(Sat.)–16
(Sun.)900 each
Face-
to-face
intervie
ws
Stratified
randomized
2-stage
sampling
from voter
lists
900
persons
each
900
persons
each
Residents’ Attitudes toward
the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki Atomic Bombings
1975June 14
(Sat.)–15
(Sun.)
Survey in the 50th Year
after the End of the War1995
May 12
(Fri.)–15
(Mon.)
Opinion Survey on the
Atomic Bombings, in
Hiroshima, Japan, and the
United States (Japanese
survey)
2005
Stratified
randomized
2-stage
sampling
from the
Jumin
Kihondaicho
(Basic
Register of
Residents)
