Japan's emperor says he will honor Japanese POWs who were held in Mongolia
Naruhito, marking the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII, has been visiting some of the places where the bloodiest battles and bombings occurred, including Iwo Jima , Okinawa and Hiroshima. It's part of his effort at atonement and remembrance of the tragedy of war fought in the name of his grandfather, Emperor Hirohito.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's time for a United States of Europe
Advertisement But history wasn't done with him. In 2030, Russia invaded Estonia, a former Soviet republic in northeastern Europe. It was Ukraine all over again. Estonia was a NATO member, but the United States, still led by the Republican Party's isolationist right wing, refused to intervene. Europe was on its own. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In those dark years, Macron emerged as Europe's moral and military leader. His cause: the creation of a single European nation — a United States of Europe. In 2035, seven European countries — France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Poland — merged and established the European Federation. Macron was elected its first president. Now, a decade later, Macron is finishing his second term. Under his leadership, the Federation has expanded to more than 20 countries. It has repelled the Russian threat. And it has grown into a global superpower to rival America and China. Advertisement Not just make-believe The idea of a United States of Europe might sound like a fantasy, but it is a serious proposition whose time has come. Threatened by Vladimir Putin on its eastern flank and abandoned by Donald Trump's America, Europe must evolve or fall apart. As the new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, The best way to do that will be to form a European federation. A federation would unite Europe far more extensively than the European Union does — it would bind countries into a truly unified system of government like what exists in the United States. And it's the only way the continent can guarantee its security, protect its democratic values, and secure its influence in the 21st century and beyond. The current EU is a constitutional Frankenstein: a byzantine economic and political union whose power is split between the That's not all. There's also a Advertisement Oh, and 20 EU countries Confused? You're not alone. Everything would be simpler with a European federation. The historian Brendan Simms, who leads Cambridge University's Think of how the United Kingdom or the United States works: There is one central government, with devolved governments at the regional or state levels. As Simms outlines in his book ' A federal Europe isn't a new idea. It became a real possibility after World War II. In 1951, six countries — including France, West Germany, and Italy — formed a Advertisement At the end of the Cold War, Europe had another chance to become a federation with the advent of the EU in 1993. The German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, But Kohl's warning fell on deaf ears. Pundits predicted that the EU would soon rival the United States as the apex of liberal civilization. Books appeared with grand titles like ' They were all wildly mistaken. First there was the 2008 financial crash, then the eurozone debt crisis, the 2015 migration wave, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. Political power mattered more than ever. But under pressure, the EU has started to show some teeth. Take Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The EU has given Advertisement In recent years, the EU has also Macron deserves much of the credit for Europe's awakening, despite France's historic resistance to a unified Europe. 'Only Europe can guarantee genuine sovereignty or our ability to exist in today's world to defend our values and interests,' he said At the height of the pandemic, Macron spearheaded the creation of an Advertisement But Europe must unite more closely still. The circumstances demand it. It's become obvious that Russia At the same time, Europe's longstanding ally, America, is stepping back. Trump no longer wants the United States to underwrite the continent's security. Instead, he seems hellbent on going over the heads of Europeans Europe must strike out on its own Fortunately, both Macron and Merz seem to understand that Europe must now chart its own path. The United States of Europe would be a force to be reckoned with — thanks to a Europe should also become a federation to better rein in multinational corporations and build an economy that works for the many. The continent has a unique socioeconomic model: social democracy. But only if countries pool their resources will Europeans be able to preserve their cherished welfare states and long summer holidays. What's more, the two great challenges of the 21st century — climate change and artificial intelligence — will require sustained collective action. Again, only a federation can deliver that. There's only one way forward — and now is the time 'A United States of Europe isn't some utopian dream, it's a necessary evolution,' says Daniela Vancic of the History is also on the side of a European federation. 'Federations are established when there's an external threat,' says Matt Qvortrup, a senior research fellow at Australian National University's This was the case with the United States. After declaring independence in 1776, the states were But, even in a crisis, a European superstate won't magically appear. It has to be willed into existence. The political landscape across Europe isn't helping. The EU is divided between pro-European parties and Euro-skeptic nationalist parties. The pro-European faction must do more than simply defend against nationalist attacks; it must start advocating for a federation outright. Otherwise, it risks being seen as apologists for the EU's bureaucracy. The choice shouldn't be between the EU as it is now and nationalism. It should be between deeper integration and nationalism. If pro-Europeans don't offer that choice, nationalists will prevail. Far from pursuing a United States of Europe, some countries could even slam the door on the status quo: the EU. After all, Brexit showed that leaving the bloc is possible. But failure is not inevitable. Public opinion across Europe is complicated — and more pro-European — than it might seem. Voters may be frustrated with the EU, but they are not opposed to a unified Europe. To the contrary. According to Yet Europeans won't clamor for a federation if leaders fail to champion it. More than anyone else, that responsibility falls to Macron. Rumor has it he It will require all of his political courage. As a wise man
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth announces new name of US navy ship that honored gay rights icon Harvey Milk
The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has formally announced that the US navy supply vessel named in honor of the gay rights activist Harvey Milk is to be renamed after Oscar V Peterson, a chief petty officer who received the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Battle of the Coral Sea in the second world war. 'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Hegseth announced on Friday on X. In an accompanying video-statement, Hegseth added: 'We are not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration. Instead, we are renaming the ship after a congressional Medal of Honor recipient.' 'People want to be proud of the ship they are sailing in,' Hegseth added. The move comes amid a widespread backlash against LGBTQ+ rights and issues in the US under the Trump administration, ranging from banning books associated with LGBTQ+ causes to reducing the rights of transgender people. Related: Four queer business owners on Pride under Trump: 'Our joy is resistance' The oil-supply vessel had been named after the San Francisco gay rights activist, who was murdered in 1978 after serving as a city supervisor, dubbing himself the 'Mayor of Castro Street'. He had served in the navy as a diving officer on a submarine rescue ship but resigned with an 'other than honorable' discharge rather than be court-martialed for homosexuality. Peterson served on the USS Neosho, a ship that was heavily damaged by Japanese dive bombers on 7 May 1942, during the Battle of the Coral Sea. In one bombing raid, Peterson and members of the repair party he led were severely wounded. But despite his injuries, he managed to close four steam line valves, suffering third-degree burns to his face, shoulders, arms and hands in the process. But by closing the bulkhead valves, Peterson isolated the steam to the engine room and helped keep the ship operational. In an announcement that appeared timed for the start of Pride month, Hegseth announced that Milk's name was to be stripped from ship in early June. It had been named after the gay icon in 2016 by then-navy secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights. The move to strip Milk's name from the ship triggered a backlash from the activist's friends when it was first reported. 'Yes, this is cruel and petty and stupid, and yes, it's an insult to my community,' Cleve Jones, Milk's close friend and an LGBTQ+ activist, previously told the Associated Press. 'I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that American families sitting around that proverbial kitchen table this evening are not going to be talking about how much safer they feel now that Harvey's name is going to be taken off that ship,' he added to the news agency. Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, told the AP that renaming the ship would become 'a rallying cry not just for our community but for all minority communities'. He added: 'I don't think he'd be surprised, but he'd be calling on us to remain vigilant, to stay active.' Elected officials, including the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and California's governor, Gavin Newsom, described the change as an attempt to erase the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and an insult to fundamental American values of honoring veterans. 'The right's cancel culture is at it again. A cowardly act from a man desperate to distract us from his inability to lead the Pentagon,' Newsom said of Hegseth on the social media platform X.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Trump—And the U.S.—Can't Understand About Air Strikes
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Donald Trump ordered air strikes on key Iranian nuclear-enrichment sites last month and immediately declared that the targets had been 'completely and totally obliterated,' he was counting on a single display of overwhelming air power to accomplish a major strategic goal. Though initially hesitant to join Israel's 10-day-old bombing campaign against Iran, the president came to believe that the United States could finish off Tehran's nuclear ambitions all at once. After what he called a 'very successful attack,' Trump demanded that Israel and Iran stop fighting, declaring, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' In reality, the U.S. attack may have only delayed the Iranian program by months. Trump ended up short-circuiting both his own efforts at diplomacy with Iran and an extraordinary Israeli campaign that required years of elaborate preparation, rendered Iran's air-defense network inoperable, and allowed Israeli forces to methodically work through a long list of target sites across the country over the course of a week and a half. Destroying a military target from the air usually requires multiple raids on the site—not one night and a victory declaration on Truth Social. Israeli military planners had clearly hoped to enlist American help in attacking Iran but may not have anticipated that it would be for one night only. To some extent, Trump's approach is typical of American leaders, who have routinely underestimated the true complexities of military tasks and assumed that a burst of overwhelming force will secure U.S. objectives and allow Washington to impose its version of peace. Recent events—not just in the Middle East but also in Ukraine—suggest that smaller countries with fewer resources than the United States have a far more urgent understanding specifically of how to use air power and generally of how to defeat their enemies. [Read: Trump's One-and-Done Doctrine] An unbounded faith in American military might, combined with a desire not to get bogged down in long foreign engagements, has led to excesses of optimism in the past: the constant escalation cycle in Vietnam, when it was said that more force would bring victory; the infamous mission accomplished banners after U.S. forces deposed Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. In conflicts since the end of World War II, the U.S. military has prevailed in individual battles, but it has won only one clear victory in a war: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. This conundrum has led to far less introspection than it deserves. One of the reasons might be that U.S. military power has been so extensive that the military, and policy makers, have not had to think too deeply about the process of winning wars. For 80 years, the U.S. military could be deployed to occupy territory, blow up structures, or destroy an enemy force—and was able to do it. It could inflict a frightening toll on its enemies at remarkably little cost to itself. The risk of overestimating American capabilities may be greatest in decisions about applying air power. The U.S. has the most awesome air force the world has ever seen. (Not coincidentally, the successful Desert Storm campaign involved purposeful and relentless air attacks on enemy targets.) Such power has immense costs, however, one of which is the destructive luxury of not having to think deeply about just what it means to win a war. American policy makers feel able to lecture smaller powers about what they should and should not do. Trump pushed Israel—which had, remarkably, achieved the ability to move freely in Iranian airspace—to stand down before the U.S. could reliably ascertain whether its own air strikes had been effective. Since 2022, bad instructions from the United States have been devastating to Ukraine's effort to fight off Russian invaders. Under the Biden administration, the United States feared escalation with Russian President Vladimir Putin and kept Ukrainians from using Western-made long-range weaponry to strike legitimate military targets inside Russia. In effect, the American veto created a large safe space in Russia, and gave the Russians the flexibility to plan and execute a hugely destructive strategic air campaign against Ukraine. Until Ukraine began developing its own systems, it was nearly powerless to stop the Russians from unleashing drones and missiles on Ukrainian military and civilian targets. Instead, the Ukrainians were forced to concentrate their resources on a bloody land war fought in trenches and by drones; despite large casualties on both sides, the fighting has produced only tiny changes in territorial control. Ukraine has done its best to change this dynamic, by working to expand its own long-range capabilities and using those weapons against targets in Russia. The tragedy for Ukrainians is that the Biden administration stood in their way for three years—and was succeeded by a Trump administration that, perhaps because of a broad sympathy with Putin, seems intent on letting Russia win. [Read: The problem with Trump's cease-fire] For all its advanced weaponry, the United States would benefit from listening to smaller, more inventive militaries that are fighting larger adversaries in a rapidly evolving technological environment. Ukraine, for example, has developed enormous expertise in designing and deploying unmanned aerial vehicles, which—as the recent attacks on Russian airfields thousands of miles away from the Ukrainian border showed—create new vulnerabilities at traditional military facilities. Unfortunately, nothing about recent U.S. actions suggests that the country's leaders have any intention to learn from others. Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon seems obsessed with 'lethality'—the idea that the United States wins wars by bringing greater lethal force to every direct engagement with the enemy. But although that focus might sound macho and hyper-militaristic to him and Trump, it may be the precursor to more events like Trump's Iran strikes: showy tactical attacks that fail to accomplish any strategic goals of substance. Article originally published at The Atlantic
