I don't have any problem with Obama visiting the bombing sites, and I think it's an important milestone for a US president. I doubt he'll "apologize" for them as many on the right are accusing that this is what this is. Personally, I'd also be against "apologizing" for dropping the bombs as well, though from what we know that's not Obama's motive at all.
It's still hard to believe that such an awesome country was our enemy.
My Operations Management professor last semester made a statement on such a situation that we could've just engaged in trade with Japan and been buddies right from the start instead of having a war then establishing trade.
Granted I'm pretty sure the US and Japan were trading pre-WW2 (see oil) but not to the extent and magnitude of today.
The Imperial Japanese government was a horrific, despotic regime.
There are whole sorts of additional moral questions to ask if you tacitly support a regime that is committing broad acts of international genocide as a trade partner. Perhaps you avert a pacific war between Japan and the United States (which, really, I think that's a naive point of view considering that there weren't hostilities between the US and Japan prior to Japan's attempt to destroy the entire US naval fleet), but you have to consider the implications that if you're supporting an imperialistic, mass-murdering government that is raping wide swaths of countryside outside of their own borders
and aligning themselves with fascists in Europe who are waging destructive, genocidal wars on that continent, whether that's a really good idea for an ally.
Your professor may be ignoring (or ignorant of the fact) that the US established a trade agreement with Japan following WW2 out of necessity because the United States essentially created the government of Japan following World War II. Further part of preventing Japan from succumbing to Soviet-style Communism was to bolster their economy with trade.
I'm pretty sure he did, even if he didn't it was a business course not a history one; the comment made was more focusing on the great effects of trade rather than historical accuracy.
I think it's worth challenging this idea with the ethical question of whether someone should support genocide with commerce, if there is a byproduct of averting war. For instance, Switzerland famously remained neutral throughout World War II, but that neutrality manifested itself in tacit support of the Nazi regime and direct support of the Holocaust. That neutrality continued after the war and Switzerland -- along with the neutral Catholic Church -- became vital respites for prominent Nazis and SS officers seeking to escape prosecution for committing the atrocities of the holocaust. In this example, is there an ethical cost for Switzerland in monetarily supporting a regime that was using that money to exterminate Jews, homosexuals, the mentally handicapped, and other undesirables?
