Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 16, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] The Effect On Japanese Culture

What I'm interested in knowing is how the atomic bombings affected the thoughts, attitudes, and culture of the Japanese, if at all. The coverage of the planning and dropping of the bombs is great, and is well documented, but what about all the years after the bombings and even up to today? Are most Japanese still angry? Have they moved on? Without this information this article still seems incomplete to me. J.H (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is totally incomplete, go seach for urself in serious historian's books. It seems to me like people here are not confortable with this episode of world's history. We need facts and impartial critical thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.172.235 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something missing?

I came to this page wanting to know more about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and did not find what I sought. Check the page on the earlier Trinity test. There are detailed descriptions of what the experience was like for those present, what exactly happened to the surrounding terrain, eyewitness accounts, etc. So where is the experience of the ordinary survivor of the atomic blasts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I want to know what they went through from the first seconds to weeks after the blast, relief operations, etc. I know this will make horrific reading, but it needs to be discussed, and yet all I learn is that if one was wearing patterned clothing, that pattern might have been burned into one's skin. Ironic that this article contains more from the perspective of those who ran the mission than from the perspective of those who lived through the bombings.

Sorry I forgot to sign in before posting this, so I guess I will have to remain anonymous except for a number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.25 (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite common; most of the professional work by historians is in the "point of view of the bombers and planners" approach. It's no big surprise why: that's the point of view that got recorded by Americans first, even though there were some prominent works (e.g. Hershey's Hiroshima) which gave more of a flavor of the "subjective experience" of those bombed.
One quite early account of the bombing on the ground that you can find videos of on YouTube, etc., is from a Jesuit priest who was in Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) — it's quite interesting. Basically everybody thought that a bomb had happened to drop on their house—it took him and his colleagues sometime to realize that it had just been one bomb. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not include how the raitining was,how they survived during those days and how it affect the people with the atomic bomb 'Fat man' &'little boy'on he people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.218.68 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation/etc casualties

I've re-added the casualty study figures quoted in the Speigel article. Please note that it's ref'd not just to Speigel, but also to the full text of the scientific study, and the wording I wrote was based on the findings reported in the study. Speigel's article does not seem to have mis-represented the paper. If you want to claim it's mis-information, please provide references; it seems pretty well-sourced to me (and I was surprised myself, but the paper seems quite solid), and it seems relevant. I slightly reworded to make the referencing clearer, and fixed a typo. Also, I chose not to re-insert the word "may" in the sentence preceding, and corrected the tense of that sentence. Note that this focused on survivors within 10km looking for radiation-based effects. Surprising to me also was that a large fraction of early deaths (circa 1/3) were non-cancerous. jesup 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the RERF study, which is well known to the regular editors here. It has been discussed extensively. Here are the factual errors and misleading implications in the Speigel article:
  • The RERF study desn't cover all survivors within a certain radius of the bomb. The study only begins in 1950. The bombs were dropped in 1945. All deaths in the intervening five years are excluded.
  • The study only looks at a cohort, i.e. a significant subgroup. It doesn't look at all suriviors who were alive in 1950.
  • The study focusses almost exclusively on cancer and leukemia. It pays much less attention to deaths caused by other effects of radiation, e.g. a weakened immune system.
  • The RERF reports do not themselves claim to track all deaths caused by bomb-released radiation. They do not claim to track all cancer deaths due to the bomb. They do not claim to report all leukemia deaths.
  • Speigel is a very poor source.
Bsharvy 07:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Additional note. I think a brief comment abut the RERF study would be appropriate, but it needs to be as restrained as RERF itself. They only study a cohort, and they only study the post-1950 period. We can't extrapolate to more general figures, or make assumption about 1946-50, because that is original research. Bsharvy 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. It is useful information, and not having it leads to things like this. jesup (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the info that seems most appropriate. The organization of this article is a bit of a problem. The info about the effects of radiation is for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we only have a "Post Attack Casualties" section for Hiroshima. I don't see much point in creating the same subsection under Nagasaki, to duplicate the info. Maybe we should use the Hibakusha section to discuss post attack casualties, instead of a subsection of Hiroshima. Bsharvy (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The American Govenment Should face a war crimes tribunal for the use of the to nucleardevices they dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.40 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But it was okay for the Japanese army to continue their genocide in China yeah? --LiamE (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not address the real question: why is war ok? —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if we had invaded the islands, they entire population would have risen up, the homeland is sacred71.61.163.146 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freeman Dyson: Bombs had very little effect

In answering Edge.org's annual question [1], Freeman Dyson has made an unusual assertion. In spite of Emperor Hirohito's own words, as broadcast by radio to his people, Dyson claims that the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan did not contribute to its unconditional surrender. Hirohito declared,"…the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers." Dyson proposes the notion that the imminent shortage of rice had more of an effect than the bombs. Lestrade (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Dyson's claims, by themselves, are not new, but it is interesting that he is making them. As Dyson points out, he is basing his reassessment on the work of Hasegawa, which unfortunately gets very little representation in this article or on Wikipedia in general, as it is quite a provocative but well argued reassessment. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

It's worth mentioning that the entire bombing was, technically, an act of terrorism, as it was targeting towards non-combatants and intended to scare the Japanese government into surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.98.101 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, yes. They called it, euphemistically, the "shock" strategy. Do something appalling, hope it shocks them into surrender. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this just like the 9/11 then, only much worse? --BiT (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Silly me, I just deleted a comment here thinking it was on the main article and vandalism. Many apologies to the poster. It is late, I am tired and I should be in bed. Incidently I don't feel that the bombings can be compared to terrorism in any way. You cannot view the events of 1945/46 in today's mindset. It is regrettable that two hundred thousand Japanese died in these bombings but without them a conventional land war would have killed millions of Japanese military, civilians and American soldiers. The Japanese would have fought to the death rather than surrender when defending their homeland. On balance it was the correct choice, if a difficult one. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The same could be said of the appalling activities of the Imperial Japanese Occupation Forces who terrorised, raped, tortured and killed far more innocents throughout the Asia/Pacific region than the two nuclear attacks and all the air raids on Japan combined. Yet since the thought of what the IJOF did is not as cool, fashionable, sexy, interesting or excitable to anti-war activists as the use of Nuclear Weapons on two Japanese cities, I expected as much of certain people, particularly those who are inspired by anti-Americanism, labelling the bombings as an act of Terrorism. In my view it is far from it. There was a war on, you know; Total War, not limited war or Sub-national conflict. Signal Buster (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well of course the same could be said of many of the actions of the Japanese Imperial Army. Neither that nor the "total war" rather than "limited war" comment you made makes the bombings any less of a terrorist act. In fact, if you truly believe that it saved more lives than it cost, you can go ahead and say it was the right thing to do, but it's STILL terrorism. --MQDuck 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone has a differing viewpoint than you does not necessarily make them anti-American or anti-war activists. I find this article to be very biased and only inclusive of the American military viewpoint. I too, would like to hear more from the Japanese people who survived and other non-military views. OneWomanArmy923 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My grasp on military events isn't great, but it seems to me that this bombing is the very example of a Terror bombing: "Terror bombing is a strategy of deliberately bombing and/or strafing civilian targets in order to break the morale of the enemy, make its civilian population panic, bend the enemy's political leadership to the attacker's will...." I'm not trying to say that it was an "act of terrorism." Actually this bombing is even mentioned on the Terror bombing page, but "terror bombing" is not mentioned on this page. What do you peeps think? :) Jon Sangster (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Just because someone has a differing viewpoint than you does not necessarily make them anti-American" No, but calling it an act of Terrorism does make them Anti-American. They attacked us first, war was declared by both sides. We warned them officially that they would suffer annihalation if they continued; and civilian targets were not the main priority. It simply was not an act of terrorism. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to define terrorism in such a way that terrorism isn't terrorism if it's justified. --MQDuck 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

duck you are correct. Aceholiday (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-attack info

We need to clean up and organize how we present some of the information. We have information about post-attack casualties scattered through the sections on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hibukasha, and the Atomic Energy Commission. The problem is that a great deal of information applies to both Hiroshima and Nagaskai, but some is city-specific. So it is difficult to organize. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

[edit] Picture sizes

I've shrunk the picture sizes down as a lot were very large and distorting the text. I have also moved one picture over to the right so that it alligns with the others properly and the text is one smooth block down the left-hand side.

If anyone wants to make some pictures bigger, please discuss here so we can make the page look nice and even. John Smith's (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


New pictures (May 2008) have become available at http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_tragedy/photos.html - someone with edit clearance should post a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.39.222 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under "see also"

"The United States and Nuclear Weapons" is a redirect to "Nuclear Weapons and the United States" - please change it so it's not a link to a redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.44.197 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yokohama and the atomic bombing

The article declares that Yokohama was the fourth proposed target for bombing (after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Korkura). The [U.S. Department of Energy [2] and the Hiroshima Peace Museum [3] list Niigata as the fourth target. This makes some sense. Although Niigata was further from Tinian than Yokohama, Yokohama was more likely to have what remained of Japanese air defenses. Ccnels (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yokohama was listed as a target from May 10 to July 25, but was not a target at any point after that. Yes, it had greater air defenses, specifically more numerous AA batteries, though history doesn't tell us what General Thomas Handy was thinking when he specified Niigata as an alternate. Perhaps it was the fact that Yokohama suffered multiple incendiary attacks including a massive one in late May which would have made the effects of an atomic bomb harder to gauge afterward. Kyoto was out for cultural reasons, but we are left guessing as to why Yokohama was not an alternate. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the ja article, Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura were on the target list on May 11. Kyoto was excluded first and Niigata was on the list. Yokohama was excluded from the list on June 14. Then Niigata excluded and Nagasaki was on the list again. Finally Hiroshima, Kokura, and Nagasaki were the targets. Oda Mari (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Frank, Yokohama was hit by 510 B-29s on May 29, which "burned out 6.9 square miles, or approximately 34 percent of the city." A table on the next page says 8.94 square miles destroyed (44%); I guess that includes later raids.
—WWoods (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor cleanup needed in chemical weapon names

In the Hiroshima during World War II, chemical weapons made on Okunoshima, both mustard gas and yperite are mentioned. These are both the same compound, and link to the same article. The name yperite was used by the French to refer to mustard gas during WW1, is redundant, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.5.46 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove "focusing effect" link...it's not relevant

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to edit the main page yet. Can someone please remove the hyperlink for "focusing effect" located in the "Choice of Targets" section. The link goes to a Wikipedia page regarding a psycological phenomena, when, in this use, it's talking about the apparent maginfication of the bomb's explosive force due to the city's surrounding mountains. Thanks! 76.113.112.59 (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done —WWoods (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation today?

As is well-known, the Marshall Islands still deals with radiation, and even visitors to the Trinity Site have to follow certain rules (although the US gov't reassures people there's not enough radiation left there to make a brief visit a problem). There should be more on the clean-up of radioactive materials at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the blasts, especially considering Hiroshima (I don't know about Nagasaki) was substantially rebuilt within a decade. Is radiation still considered a concern in the two cities today, or were conditions somehow lucky in that 60 years later there's nothing to worry about there anymore? (Additional: the official website for the Hiroshima Peace Park says the radiation dissipated very rapidly in both cities and everything was fine in a fairly short period of time. It would be interesting if one could find a source discussing why the cities were different than the Trinity Site or Marshall Islands. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were airbursts so there was no fallout, only initial 'flash' radiations that do dissipate quickly, within a matter of days and weeks. The Trinity and Marshall island tests exploded the bombs on ground based towers, so there was significant cratering and consequently radioactive fallout and long lasting ground deposited isotopes. No real mystery there and certainly no luck involved and the decision to explode the Japanese bombs as airbursts included a decision NOT to inflict long term effects on the Japanese peoples. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki book....

Hello. I was reading this article for research for a lesson I had to do in school and I was also reading a book about it. I noticed that the article had somethings copied from that book. it was copied word for word. From the section titled "The bombings" through to the "japenese realization part..." I just wanted that checkd. Thanks!--CherryBlossom93 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why did it happen?

all of this was over one petty little thing-japan bombed the sydney harbour bridge so aussie and u.s went together to get japan back the troubles that aussie had to put up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.115.105 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sure no one really cares about Aussy enough to do that, but regardless please don't post nonsense. Read the article, and if you we're trying to make a joke, there are other pages you can do that on :) Best, Matt (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkin bomb

I have deleted the reference to Pumpkin Bombs from this article. There is no mention of them ever having been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but there may be a place for this wikilink on the Fat Man page 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the link. I think its presence is valid as it is related tangentially. The section heading is "See Also", not "See other things that have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki"... Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)