Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Discrepency

Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.

-

It is likely that hundreds of Allied prisoners of war also died.[19]

The latter qoutation's cited source has an agenda, and this discrepency makes this article look less legit. You might go ahead, and say something like "Despite what Spaatz reported, Hiroshima was not deviod of any POW camps, and it is likely that hundreds of allied prisoners of war also died." You might go ahead and qualify the agenda sites claims, through research, though not saying that "hundred of allied prisoners likely died" could potentially be controversial, regardless of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.21.191 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20

As I read this talk page, I am struck by the tendency to underestimate the "fog of war" as it existed in 1945. The debate seems to center around the numbers of people killed but the implied view is about the morality of the bombing in the first place.

My suggestions:

1) The fog of war was a factor and individuals can disagree about whether the action was right or wrong. The Americans wanted to end a war that the japanese would not end. The americans didn't know if the bomb would work. The Japanese didn't know the extent of the bomb's destruction and the Americans didn't know if they had a real weapon until Nagasaki. The history of the bombings should acknowledge this fact

2) America did not have a real option to stop the war - only Japan did. It took a second nuclear bombing to make Japan surrender. Had Japan surrendered at any time before Hiroshima, the bombings would not have occurred.

3) The civilian/soldier distinction wasn't clear in a war where most allied soldiers were civilians who were drafted to become soldiers. The argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes because they killed civilians fails to take into account that most american soldiers would also be civilians had Japan not embarked on an expansionist war in the first place.

Mileage 05:53, 5 September 2007

The consensus of historians is that Nagasaki was "gratuitous at best and genocide at worst". Therefore comments that "it took a second bombing" are misplaced. Saying that the Americans did not know if the bomb would work is equally strange. The two bombs were of different designs, the first was not tested because it was so simple that it was known that it would work, the second, dropped on Nagasaki had already been tested at Alamogordo, a test that it was argued that the Japanese should have been invited to witness so that they also would know how horrible the weapon was. 199.125.109.19 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it was common to issue invitations to mortal wartime enemies and have them accepted. "Say, would you like to come have a look at our new Top Secret weapon? Do you give your word you'll behave nicely during your visit to the US?" In addition, the United States had three devices (and another that needed parts), none of which they were certain would actually function properly. Imagine if, by some bizarre circumstance, a Japanese official actually accepted the invitation. What if the first test was a failure? What would our visitor report back to Japan? At that point, how could the US even allow him to return home? The use of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were desperate acts, driven by the need to bring the war to a swift close before the ground invasion of Japan. Your mythical "consensus of historians" is raw historical revisionism. How many civilians have been killed in Iraq by a military that is actively trying not to engage them? 100,000? 120,000? Imagine the carnage if the US had invaded Japan, where citizens were training with pointed sticks, coaching youths in how to crawl beneath tanks with dynamite strapped to their chests (yes it's documented, in Japan then, in Iraq now). This article must remain NPOV, and anyone who second-guesses the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan is dangerously naive. Japan and Germany, allies in destruction during WWII, together killed tens of millions of civilians during the war, at least 17 million in China alone. I wonder how the Chinese feel about the Atomic bombing of Japan? strike71 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it can't be said that it is the consensus of historians that the bombings were "gratuitous at best and genocide at worst". Is there context for that quote? Rorschak (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter much, since Japan was on the verge of collapse from submarine blockade and naval mining anyway. Unless the casualties from sustaining such an operation would greatly exceed the number of civilian lives likely to be lost in a nuclear attack then perhaps such a path could have been taken. On another note, if the U.S. was planning on using the atomic bombs against Japan, why bother with costly campaigns to take islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Maybe even the Phillipines could've been bypassed if the U.S. was able to launch the sortie from Tinian Masterblooregard 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on the "The civilian/soldier distinction wasn't clear and hence there were no war crimes" remark above. (I am not even going to argue whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes indeed.) I think that the distinction between soldiers and civilians is rather clear: a soldier is a soldier, even if he was drafted, and a civilian is a civilian, even if he could have been drafted. Nazi soldiers were still soldiers, even if they were drafted. All in all, the aforementioned kind of reasoning to justify killing civilians reminds me something like: "if he raped my wife, i should go and rape his." Cokaban 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely there was not a clear civilian/soldier distinction being that the general populace were being trained to resist any American soldiers by any means possible. Under that scenario, American soldiers were liable to be under attack from both civilians and soldiers alike. Thats means every Japanese person would be seen as an enemy Rorschak (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

CLEANUP THE LEAD

I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap, but let me tell you that it has produced a fruitful result for all involved: no-one is going to bother reading this article because the lead is absolutely abominable, one of the worst I have ever read. It screams "Childish Edit War." WP:LEAD provides clear direction on the summary style needed for a good introduction and this is a poster child for why those requirements should be followed. Who thinks it is a good idea to get into the minutiae of estimating overall casualties two sentences into a complex and detailed topic?? This needs to be cleaned up and the adolescent bickering needs to stop because the results are simply awful. Eusebeus 12:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, its tone reminds me of the opening scene in Airplane! when male and female public announcers argue over the red/white zone. Anynobody 07:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I completely agree, please keep your language and tone productive. "wading through all the shit going on" and "I don't give a crap" could be considered relatively hostile statements, and while you are appropriately admonishing the state of the article and the edit warring going on, you should make sure that you do so in a productive and civil way. Even saying "mess" instead of "shit" and "it's irrelevant" instead of "I don't give a crap" would have made this post completely civil and probably more effective. --Cheeser1 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about making the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs something like this:

The destruction was so great that it is impossible to say with precision how many people were killed. It is commonly estimated that by the end of 1945, perhaps as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki had died, more than half on the days of the bombings. Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

On August 15, 1945 Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2 which officially ended World War II. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them, has been the subject of much debate. The experience of bombing led post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbid Japan from nuclear armament.

and pushing the rest:

Several factors make it difficult to estimate casualty numbers due to the bombings. The population prior to the bombings is only roughly known, because of formal and informal evacuations, and unknown numbers of forced laborers. Some victims were burned beyond recognition or their bodies disposed in mass cremations. Records of military personnel were destroyed, and entire families perished, leaving nobody to report the casualties. According to most estimates, the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to burns, radiation, and subsequent disease, aggravated by lack of medical resources. Some estimates state up to 200,000 may have died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects. The numbers for Nagasaki are consistently lower, because the valley terrain reduced the impact of the bomb, with immediate deaths estimates ranging from 40,000 to 75,000.

down to a lower section in the article? —wwoods 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall, that looks good. Some thoughts:

• This sentence "Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.[3] " is not supported by the reference. Most sources I've seen put the number of casualties after 1945 in the tens of thousands--including the one we mention later in the later paragraph.
• When I first came to this article, I was looking for information. I wanted to know how many people had died, total. Not the causalties in 2 months, or 4 years, but the total deaths caused by the bomb. I think that is a common object of curiousity. The unusual aspect of the bomb is radiation and its effects, so that is also an object of curiousity particular to the subject. Many users will come to the article wanting to know those things. So, I would vote for putting numbers closer to a totla in the lead paragraph. But this is a mostly a style point. Bsharvy 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good. Clear, concise, sums up the most important elements, neutral tone but not too cold... total support. I think the "several thousand" is a wise formulation and allows for enough free interpretation (2,000-xx,000), and for a more precise description further in the body. Now my 2 cents concerning Bsharvy's thoughts :

• It is not completely supported by the reference, true, but the reference traced estimated deaths related to radiation, and is (important!!) accepted by all (or most of the) editors, which seems mandatory for a consensual introduction. According to Q2, Q5, and to Q8 (in the source), the numbers of deaths are somewhere around 2000+-1000. Now it is wise to imagine causes of deaths other than due to radiations (I've been fighting for it :) ), but how much? Several thousands seems a good estimation, in accordance with THIS reference, of course! You say that most sources put tens of thousands, but I havent seen any produced apart from the two books cited by the DOE page... which are these other sources?
• To know how many people died, total, would mean to know the number of people present and their age, and the japanese life expectancies for all ages from 1945 to now, along with the precise record of deaths during all these years. And this will never be precisely known. Personally I think it is more interesting to know how many total victims (and not deaths) there are, dead or still living, and this is the around 650,000 Hibakusha. But that shouldnt probably be in the lead (in my opinion). --Firkenknecht 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, RERF's estimates for its study group from 1950–90 are 428 excess cancer deaths (#2), plus 50–100% as many excess non-cancer deaths (#5) equals 642–846 excess deaths. Multiply by a few to get the number for the total population, and by a few more for the deaths 1945–50 and 1990+. That adds up to 'thousands', but not 'tens of thousands'.

Also, while the phrase doesn't have a scientific source, "thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later" has been part of someone's annual press release for years, so it can fairly be described as "commonly estimated":

• 1999: "The bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of an estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2000: "About 140,000 people died in the attack, and thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later."
• 2004: "The bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2005: "The Hiroshima bomb unleashed a mix of shockwaves, heat rays and radiation. By the end of 1945 the toll rose to some 140,000 out of an estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2006: "The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."
• 2007: "The atomic bomb had killed some 140,000 people by the end of 1945, out of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000. Thousands more succumbed to illness and injuries later."

—wwoods 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The RERF study only looks at the period from 1950-onward. It only makes estimates for a cohort, not the total population. It only studies radiation-related deaths. This is OR: "Multiply by a few to get the number for the total population, and by a few more for the deaths 1945–50 and 1990+. That adds up to 'thousands', but not 'tens of thousands'." (wwoods). On what authority is the factor to derive 1945-50 "a few"? On what authority is the factor to derive all deaths from radiation-deaths "a few?"
• The phrase "thousands more succumbed to injuries and illness later" doesn't conflict with saying tens-of-thousands succumbed to injuries etc. In order to have a conflict, you need a specific number less than 20,000. This is very clear from your last source which says: "Tens of thousands of elderly survivors, children and dignitaries gathered at the Peace Memorial Park, near ground zero where the bomb was dropped, to remember the more than 250,000 people who ultimately died from the blast." [1] If the source says "thousands more succumbed" after 1945 and also says the total after 1945 is an increase of more than 100,000, the source is not implying that thousands means less than 10,000. And this source, Reuters, is the source in almost all those links.
• So, we have a widely accepted number of roughly 100,000 by 1945-end, and widely reported numbers in 200,000-range for a total. We also have an obligation not to minimize the deaths, so "tens-of-thousands" is fair. We should discuss controversy around these numbers in a later section. Bsharvy 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• [reset indent] Huh? Other than radiation, what effect of the bombs is causing deaths years later?
• Hey, I was rounding up! It seems reasonable to assume the death rate in the early years was higher, so the deaths in 1945–50 were more than 1/8 of those in 1950–90.
• No, "more than 250,000" is just a reference to the 2007 Hiroshima cenotaph number, 253,008, given later in the article.

—wwoods 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The main point is that it doesn't matter. We have to know, with referenced sourcing, that the only deaths were due to radiation before we write on that basis. We don't know that, because there is not a single source that says that. But to answer your question: any injury reducing life-expectancy to the time in question. Brain damage, kidney damage, liver damage, spleen damage, etc. Any burns so serious they increased risk of infection. I'm not sure if the RERF numbers include diseases that occurred because of a damaged immune system, rather than directly as a result of radiation. If not, add all those. Finally, the time period in question is not restricted to "years later." It is 1945- onward. That includes people who were dying as soon as 5 months after the bombing.
• The 250,000 figure is for "people who ultimately died from the blast," as stated in the source.

Bsharvy 07:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No. There have been any number of stories which more-or-less imply or report that the annually-increased numbers of 'people who have died' are 'people who have died due to the bombs', and this is one of them. In fairness to the media, it doesn't help that the city governments are putting it that way.

• 2007: "Japan has so far recognized the total number of victims who died of radiation illness and injuries in Hiroshima as 253,008 and in Nagasaki as 143,124."
• 2005: "Including those initially listed as missing or who died afterward from a loosely defined set of bomb-related ailments, including cancers, Hiroshima officials now put the total number of the dead in this city alone at 242,437."
• 2002: "The Hiroshima city government puts the total number of people who have died after being exposed to radiation from the U.S. bombing at 226,870, including 4,977 in the past year."
• 1997: " The number of names listed in the registry of victims killed by the atomic bomb, which is kept in the Memorial Monument for Hiroshima, City of Peace (Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims) in Peace Memorial Park was 202,118 as of August 6, 1997."
• 1994: "The confusing inflation of numbers in more recent year derives from a complex and highly politicized national policy ... When such individuals die, of whatever causes, they are identified as deceased hibakusha — and their names are inscribed as such at the peace memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As of August 1994, the number of deceased hibakusha thus named in Hiroshima was 186,940. The corresponding figure in Nagasaki was 102,275. (Many of those killed, including thousands of Koreans, naturally remain unidentified and thus nameless and unlisted)."

To accept such numbers as estimates of deaths due to the bombings would require believing that ~8,000 per year were dying of bomb-related causes — and none were dying of anything else! Meanwhile, Japan's national government effectively takes a different view:

• 2007: "As of March 31, 251,834 people had "hibakusha" health books — in principle entitling them to free medical checkups and services. But only 2,242 have been recognized as having illnesses caused by radiation."
• 2002: "As of the end of March 2002, only 2,169 survivors, or 0.76% of the 285,620 survivors carrying A-bomb Survivors Health Books have certified A-bomb-related diseases. About 2,000 certifications in ten years does not show much movement."
• 2001: "As of March, there were 291,824 certified A-bomb survivors in Japan. Of these, only 2,238 were judged by the government to be suffering from A-bomb-related illnesses.

Each year, the government receives 300 to 400 applications from people claiming illnesses from the bombings. The government acknowledged 120 as survivors in 2000."

—wwoods 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Another point of view would be to consider that the article is speaking of the Hibakusha, or atomic bomb "victims" and not deads, as it is in fact later mentioned in the article ("The names of 5,221 people who died recently were added to the list of victims, bringing the total number recognized by the city to 253,008."). Dont you think that "people who ultimately died from the blast" is a contraction of "people who lived the blast and ultimately died"? Or maybe a bad translation? Or a journalistic interpretation? --Firkenknecht 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned the 250,000 figure to show that a press release saying "thousands more died later" doesn't mean much. The source can't intend an upper limit by "thousands" when its figures elsewhere imply over 100,000 more dead. Also, if you argue the source is generally sloppy (I tend to agree) because of the 250,000 figure, it's not fair to argue it is reliable about your preferred figures. I'm not trying to promote the 250,000 number.
• I don't undertand the point regarding the hibakusha numbers. What does the number of radiation sufferers in 2002 have to do with the total deaths after 1945? Bsharvy 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[belated response] The point, such as it is, is that according to the Japanese government about 1% of the survivors are suffering from bomb-related conditions. Also, that new certifications are made at the rate of about 120–200/year; but the number is roughly constant (~2,200), so I infer that they're dieing at about the same rate.

—wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to promote the 250,000 number. this has got to be the funniest thing I've read on this page, as the whole page and the archived page say just the opposite.

The point of the Hibakusha numbers are that it includes people that have died after the bombings (e.g. since then) of any causes, as do some of the sources above. I'm not 100% sure but it seems that reading here that there is a deliberate attempt to pull numbers and wording out of sources where it doesn't exist, hoping that the casual reader will not go double check to see what happened...to point out an obvious one "The RERF study only looks at the period from 1950-onward. It only makes estimates for a cohort, not the total population." ignores that the RERF study looked at everyone a certain distance frome the bombing (12km or something like that) to cut off the ones who were not directly affected by it, there is not some huge "missed" population here, rather lack of understanding on what the cohort is. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in introduction

2nd edition of wwoods proposal:

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation.

In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

• What I changed. 1) The source everybody accepts, RERF FAQ, has figures for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I changed the source for Nagasaki from Fox news to RERF. (I think the the figures in the Fox story are for immediate deaths, in any case.) 2) I changed "more than" to "roughly", since the range of deaths after the first day is very broad. 3) I took out the first paragraph sentence, because I think that topic belongs in the later discussion. 4) Reworded the sentence giving death estimates so it is in active instead of passive voice. 5) Re the recently discussed part, I changed "Since then, several thousand more have died from injuries or illness due to radiation" to "thousands more" which seems the best compromise as it neither limits nor promotes an upper end.
• In a section on "Effects of the bomb," we should discuss hibakusha, DOE figures and any reliable discussion of 1945-1950 deaths, RERF Lifespan study, difficulties in accurate estimating, secondary disease, and other issues. Bsharvy 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Thousands" is fine with me. I prefer putting "by the end of 1945" in front, but that's a quibble.

—wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed above. The article is far from perfect, but cleaner than it was before. One problem is that there is no section for discussion of the effects common to both bombings--odd considering the article's subject encompasses both. So, I didn't see a natural place to put this info, which I assume is true of both cities:

"Several factors make it difficult to estimate casualty numbers due to the bombings. The population prior to the bombings is only roughly known, because of formal and informal evacuations, and unknown numbers of forced laborers. Some victims were burned beyond recognition or their bodies disposed in mass cremations. Records of military personnel were destroyed, and entire families perished, leaving nobody to report the casualties. According to most estimates, the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to burns, radiation, and subsequent disease, aggravated by lack of medical resources.

Maybe the Hibakusha section could be turned into a subsection within a general section on the aftermath of both bombings. Bsharvy 10:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Total deaths

We've got a variety of estimates of deaths in the 1940s, but it occurs to me that the cite we'd like — "As of 2005, an estimated XXX people have died due to the direct and indirect effects of the two bombs." — may not even exist, in any reliable source. All I've come across are a couple of estimates of deaths as of 1950, and a couple of estimates of deaths since 1950.

• There's the much-discussed '200k (H) + 140k (N) = 340k by 1950', made in the '50s, described in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• And there's this: '119k (H) + 74k (N) = 193k by 1950'.[2] The source for that seems to be "Hamashima Shoten Henshūbu. 1999. Shiryō Kara Rekishi. Nagoya: Hamashima Shoten."[3] I've no idea where to find that.

• There's RERF's estimate of 1950–90 deaths for the study group: 428 cancer (including 89 leukemia) deaths[4] plus 214–428 non-cancer deaths[5] = 642–856.

• And there's this: a German National Research Center for Environment and Health (GSF) estimate of 1950–2000 deaths for the study group: 479 cancer (plus 93 leukemia) deaths, "and it is expected that at least another 500 additional radiation-induced cancers will be seen among the survivors."[6]

Are there any other data points? —wwoods 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gradually changed my feeling that the total deaths to date is an important number. The problem is that excess deaths occurring now are, generally speaking, a reduction in life expteancy from, say, 85 years to 80 years. I think it is a ittle misleading to lump those in with deaths that reduced from life expectancy from 85 years to 21 years, i.e. deaths that occurred in the first five years. It is more meaningfuol and useful to give the deaths in a specified time period. All the evidence I've seen suggests that deaths afer the early 50's probably aren't a very large. If we are going to include later deaths we should specify the time period, e.g. 1955-1990, rather than just trying to lump them in with deaths that occurred 1945-50. Bsharvy 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple edit suggestion.

Under the subheading 3.2 "The Bombing", "...first nuclear bombing mission on August 6...", is not followed by the year "1945". The article has a gap in speaking of dates, and it is important to include the year "1945" next to this date as reference. User5802 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please unlock

{{editprotected}}
This page has been locked for half a month and I cannot find any discussion relating to the reason for its having been protected. Please unlock the page so that fruitful progress on the article may continue, and/or require that the parties involved in the warring that led to its being protected discuss the relevant issues of contention before continuing their involvement in editing. Robert K S 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 Declined - To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection instead of using {{editprotected}}. -- JHunterJ 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the edit dispute appears to be in Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 16. -- JHunterJ 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The above template and declining of the request is just patronizing. I'm sorry I'm uneducated on the proper protocol, but the above response was most unhelpful. At some point in the future, one will need to have passed some sort of bar exam to get anything done on Wikipedia. Robert K S 03:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The {{editprotected}} is for immediate implementation of proposed edits to a protected page. That's not what you wanted; you wanted a protected page unprotected. The place to make such a request is [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (as mentioned in the {{editprotected}} textbox). Declining the request may seem patronizing here, but it removes it from the Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, which is helpful to the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Pointing you to the correct place to make the request is the most help I can give, and I don't understand how it is unhelpful. -- JHunterJ 03:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize... I guess I was most irked by the "Declined" template icon. The proper protocol for requesting unprotection is indeed in the protected template and I just didn't see it at first. I'll go there and submit the request for unprotection. Even so, it's a runaround that I think quite unnecessary, especially after administrator attention has already been brought. Robert K S 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the issue was that got the article locked for so long. Some disagreement over casualty estimates? Couldn't the warring parties just agree to a table of casualty estimates from the various sources, with those sources listed? Robert K S 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say what I think...

First, I was so surprised by this article, because I noticed that the part of it that argued for and against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had totally vanished. It was truly the ugliest part of this article; it was cut up in two big parts against and for the bombings, and every wikipedian sticked to the side of his/her personal opinions. If anyone from the other side tried to change the opposite side, hell, armageddon and judgement day would break out on the talk page!

Now I see that something truly worse has happened. This has simply been moved to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Great, it us just what we needed! It is damn typical; when wikipedians can't decide on X, what do we get? A brand new article "Debate over X" or sometimes "Criticism of X"! And you say that you have to do this because that part of the article X simply got too long. Ofcourse it got too long! That is simply because you can not agree on the subject, and nor do you bother to try to do so! Examples? Wikipedia! Criticism of Wikipedia! Ahmadinejad! Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! Islam! Criticism of Islam!

You know that there are more examples out there, so I won't bother giving you the complete list. Just ask yourself what reputation this gives to Wikipedia. Are we truly an Encyclopedia, or just another debate-site going undercover?

So disappointed that don't even bother to sign in and sign this post with my account. 81.170.138.232 12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't this article be about the bombings themselves. I would say there should be a page devoted to the debate over the justification for the bombings and if it was a war crime or not. I say it is a valid debate, one that we can't answer yet. Rorschak (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate over the nuclear attacks existed long before Wikipedia ever did. The public struggle over the validity or lack thereof to the choice is very real; a wikipedia page is right to cover it. Likewise, there are many aspects of Islam that bring passionate disagreement or worse, several of which I myself admit to having gotten into fights over. Just because something is, in itself, THE controversy/fight/loathing/seething hatred over a subject doesn't mean it doesn't FACTUALLY exist, which the fights over the Bombs, Islam, Ahmadinejad and even, on a FAR smaller scale, Wikipedia itself, do. If the fight was solely a wikipedian Edit war, then it would not be noteworthy; but I can only assure, the debates on those subjects, and others besides, are. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

In reviewing this article per the GA nomination made, I find it meets at least one of the quick-fail criteria, in this case the presence of multiple {{fact}} tags. Though it's written basically well, it does also need extensive inline citation work. Remember that the bare minimum is a ref at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is depressing. I just found this page for the first time, and I think it's to Wikipedia's great discredit that we can't even manage to get to 'Good Article' standard for an article on one of the most important events of the 20th Century (and indeed, all of human history).

Then again, The Holocaust isn't a Good Article, either. (Not meaning to imply any moral equivalency - merely regretting Wikipedia's lack of quality articles on these hugely important topics.) Terraxos 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Though the intro accurately reflects the horrors related to atomic bombing, it is throughly POV to present numbers without context. Though I personally do not feel that it is adequate justification, WP:NPOV should at least be reflected in presenting both views (or none at all.) Djma12 ^(talk) 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's perfectly fine to acknowledge the alternative perspective on the bombings, but if you're going to take that tack you also need to include the rebuttal, which is that the Japanese asked to surrender before the bombings, and the U.S. denied them. Thus, some historians have made the argument that the rationale you included is invalid. VanTucky ^Talk 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you suggest some wording that would include that without excess verbosity?

Djma12 ^(talk) 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on finding the most appropriate source presently, when I figure it out I'll propose any addition (not more than a sentence or two) before adding it. Sound good? VanTucky ^Talk 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looking around and, other than some fairly extreme websites, I can't find a reputable source that states that Japan ever asked for a surrender before the bombings. If you have a source that fits WP:V, it would be great to include it both here and in Surrender of Japan. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese didn't offer to surrender until 10 August — after the bombings. Some of them had been talking to each other about asking the Soviets to act as their agents in negotiating some sort of ceasefire, but they couldn't even agree among themselves on the immediate need to end the war or on what the terms might be, much less putting a proposal to the Allies.

—wwoods 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the POV that had been added to the third paragraph, in the lead. It was not only POV, it did not belong in the intro. This article is about the bombings generally. Please take the time to read the Talk for the last two months. Ninety-percent of the debate here has been about the lead, and only recently was some agreement reached.Bsharvy 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the past debate centered around the numbers to present within the lead and "Fog of War" concepts. It never addressed motivation. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, did you read the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe that a full rehash of that article is in no means required for either this article or the intro. Having the intro only state casualties and not intent however is analogous to only listing medication side effects without indications. (Interesting, important, and incomplete.) Djma12 ^(talk) 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro should be better to mention only what actually happened. As for intent, how about to put into the first paragraph in simpler description? Something like: After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities and the Potsdam ultimatum, Japan did not surrender. President Truman decided to drop the bombsin order to end the war and save both American and Japanese lives. And as for the estimated numbers, it would be better to write somewhere in the article. Or create a new section for the procession of the event. Oda Mari (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I remember Japan was seeking peace and the USA might know that. Oda Mari (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent debate centered on death estimates, and also on cleaning up the lead in general. A major concern with the 2n paragraph was the apropriate level of detail for a lead paragraph--a concern which applies equally to the third paragraph. The main problem was that the lead was too bloated--a problem not addressed by trying to add more to it. Bsharvy 03:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture legend needs a citation

The legend "The energy released by the bomb was powerful enough to burn through clothing. The dark portions of the garments this victim wore at the time of the blast were emblazoned on to the flesh as scars, while skin underneath the lighter parts (which absorb less energy) was not damaged as badly." needs a citation to the source. It seems not true that the skin under darker closing would be damaged more than under lighter parts, as dark material is usually less transparent for the radiation (for this reason, i believe, people in Africa are black). Cokaban 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It was thermal damage to skin, not radiation damage that left the marks. The dark parts of the clothing got instantly hotter than the light parts. Binksternet 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this, that's why a citation to an expert or the source is needed. If the radiation was that strong that it burned the closing (if the closing got that hot under radiation that it burned the skin), the radiation would also burn the skin through the closing. When one stands near a bonfire in a tee shirt, one feels the heat first of all in the form of radiation through the tee shirt, not that much by the temperature of the tee shirt. Cokaban 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flash burns are different than your experiance with bonfires. see a discussion at [[7]] the effect was well established during the above-ground US testing, the woman-with-kimono-pattern photo is merely the most dramatic example. Rick Boatright (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Is there any rhyme or reason to the listings in the "Further reading" section? Most of it just seems to be fairly random. I plan to go through it to trim it to the most significant ones, any suggestions would be nice. I also plan to merge it with the "references" list due to the existence of the numerous footnotes. Mr.Z-man 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any. Your plan sounds good to me. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

why dont you put polyanna into the article?

i dont understand. its a holocoust, its totally a genocide. but i dont see any criticism that giving a point to United State's civilian holocousts on overseas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Freeman Dyson: Bombs had very little effect

In answering Edge.org's annual question [8], 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)

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)

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)

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 [9] and the Hiroshima Peace Museum [10] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Effect On Japanese Culture

Blah Blah Blah bBlah Blah .we cant erase time it was a mistake we know itwas bad but get over it its not worth starting another wear overJ.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)

Choice of Target

The statement regarding the general lack of concern over targeting civilians, outside some high profile military leaders such as Eisenhower, which was only recently fact tagged this month, was deleted under the false claim that it "was not true." I restored it and added a source, part of which I quote to expand on this very true point.

This is from Professor Mark Selden who I quote, "A few U.S. military men raised questions ...but no significant discussion of the ethics or the political ramifications of civilian bombing took place either in policy councils or in the public domain...Despite fleeting discussions about demonstrating the power of the bomb at an uninhabited test site, discussions which took place largely outside the corridors of power, the road to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially devoid of consideration of the ethical implications of its use."From the preface to his book, The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Mark Selden, Kyoko Selden; M. E. Sharpe, 1989. Next time it would be good to either allow some time for the source to be found, or read more about the subject before proclaiming it "not true" and deleting it.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not true as the objective wasn't a civilian target. The process of choosing bombing targets had lots of considerations including the ability to raise hopelessness in the military and population, destruction of military infrastructure and other considerations. To claim they had "no qualms about civilian targets" is both false and inflammatory as it supposes that a) it was only chosen because it was a civilian target and b) the people making the decision were callously chose it. Seldin is an extreme minority fringe viewpoint that claims these were acts of terrorism. It has no place here. --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The city itself was the target. That is a civilian target. Yes, there were many considerations for selection, but stating they lacked moral concern for the impact on civilians is true regardless. They are not mutually exclusive propositions and no where does it say that it was "only choosen because it was a civilian target." The paragraph below presents the thinking of the Target Comittee. Seldin's view here is not "extreme minority fringe.' I believe that this view is in fact the consensus view. I can easily find more sources if you'd like. Civilians deaths were not a matter of moral concern with the dropping of these bombs. In fact and argument can be made that they wanted large civilian deaths to make the pychological impact, the terror, all the more greater.DrGabriela (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Selden's conclusions aren't without merit, but him being given a lengthy quote here is out of proportion to his influence. I reduced the section by eliminating his name and his quote, retaining him as a reference for the fact that some government and military men were against dropping the bomb on civilians. The section now follows the main targeting discussion. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me. However, can you put his quote in a footnote? I think what he says is adds value. Regards.DrGabriela (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding footnote quote: you're free to do that if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how "A few U.S. military men raised questions" (above) turned into "many political and military leaders, including General Eisenhower, argued against dropping the bombs" (in the article).

—WWoods (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My fault. I'll correct it. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<--User:DHeyward just wrote a paragraph replacing what is being discussed here. The new paragraph brings the opposite conclusion: that much sympathy for the Japanese civilian existed in the group of decision makers. DHeyward's single reference for this paragraph is a very short webpage that describes how the order was given. Not a page that supports the idea of sympathy... I've reverted DHeyward's new paragraph. Please discuss edits to gain consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that. I also note that he has violated 3RR but I won't report him this time. I also ask that he not edit war further but work with others for consensus. It seems the shortened version with a footnote meets consensus of most editors here.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the quote as a footnote.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Selden quote belongs. It doesn't even make sense. How can you say but no significant discussion of the ethics or the political ramifications of civilian bombing took place either in policy councils or in the public domain - the thing was a secret. How could discussions of its ethics possibly have taken place in the public domain when choosing the target? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed here. It was a secret, yes, but the records are clear: those who knew about the secret, those who made the decisions and discussed its use, did not consider the ethics of using it against civilians. Also your quote and understanding of it is a bit off. The actual quote is: "Despite fleeting discussions about demonstrating the power of the bomb at an uninhabited test site, discussions which took place largely outside the corridors of power, the road to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially devoid of consideration of the ethical implications of its use." Notice it refers to those in the corridors of power, and that they were devoid of ethical considerations. This is part of the record. Also, with the other part of the quote, the Prof. is referring to the bombings of civilians leading up the the Atom bomb, prior to it: those on Tokyo and Dresden, and then the Atomic Bombings - all were without ethical considerations for these terror bombings, whose targets were concentrated civilians populations. This is an important and point, as is the Seldon quote so it should be restored. Also, consensus was to keep it in the shortened version with the footnote. So if you disagree you should work with consensus instead of just reverting.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The ethical debate at the time was between whether the bomb should be used in a way that pressured politicians to outlaw the weapon as a violation of international law or whether to use it in a way that would make war itself unthinkable. Oppenheimer and the other scientists on the target committee believed that using the weapon in a way that would show how destructive it really was would put an end to war while a demonstration would only ban it's use. The scientists certainly did debate the ethics of both building it and employing it and implying anything else is absolutely wrong. The fact that there were many different views that are published by contemporary scientists (including the Franck Report shows that they debated it. Whether they came to the correct conclusion is a different debate but to conclude they must not have considered it is flat out wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about something else. If you have a source for that, you can add this, but it has nothing to do with the above sourced content that asserts that those who made the decisions, including the the Targeting Committee itself, did not have ethical qualms about the use of the weapon against civilians. As the quote says, "Despite fleeting discussions about demonstrating the power of the bomb at an uninhabited test site, discussions which took place largely outside the corridors of power, the road to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially devoid of consideration of the ethical implications of its use."Giovanni33 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And the statement "...the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially devoid of consideration of the ethical implications of its use." is nonsense. That was the only consideration. They discussed it endlessly at Los Alamos and other places. Oppenheimers famous quote Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. illustrates the knowledge of the ethical implications and this is before it was killed anyone. The scientists chose the targets and they debated their participation in even building the thing. The problem with Selden is that he puts the cart before the horse. He concludes that the decision was wrong, therefore the debate must not have been thorough enough or even taken place. The historical record indicates the debates did take place, the participants knew full well what they were doing and decided that it was ethical and proper to build it and drop it. People can disagree with that decision but claiming they ignored certain considerations to arrive at a decision is not factual. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing the point: No one, including Seldon, disputes that discussions took place, he merely states that it was outside of the corridors of power, i.e. those who made the decisions about the use of the bomb. The Target Committee documents substantiate that claim. That document has no ethical concern for the targeting of civilians, in fact the very opposite: they insisted in creating a psychological impact through it (hence the state terrorism claims). Your claim of Seldon's being "nonsense" is your own personal view and it is not relevant here. Unless you have a source which disputes what Seldon says (and stick to what he is saying not the straw man that you've been erecting), then we could include it. Otherwise its your own OR/personal view, and that does not stand up to remove valid sourced material that passes WP:RS, and WP:V.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that Oppenheimer considered it and he led the committee. The scientists chose the targets. They had the discussions. They were the "corridor of power." Seldon is the view that is not substantiated and his view is not mainsttream. It's not even a significant minority opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You've got your facts wrong. Care to provide some sources to support your claims? In particular I'm looking for you support these claims: "The scientists chose the targets, "Oppenheimer considered it (the ethics of using it on civilians) and he led the Targeting committee in expressing this view." Also, that these scientists were the "corridors of power," i.e. they made the decisions about the bomb, where to drop it, to use it, etc. I'd be very curious to see you back up these statements with a reliable source. Seldon's view is the consensus view, in fact: the bombings on Tokyo, Dresden and the Atomic Bombings are all characterized as terror bombings precisely because of the lack of ethical considerations of targeting civilians, and this has far ranging impact of later US military actions in South East Asia. So lets see some actual sources, instead of your opinions. I have sources to back up each one of my claims, and I await to see you do the same.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"In fact: the bombings on Tokyo, Dresden and the Atomic Bombings are all characterized as terror bombings..." This statement represents an opinion, not a fact. Let's not drift into POV-ishness by trying to lead the reader down a particular path. Let's simply state the facts and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is right, its is a POV. I was stating that it is often characterized as terror bombings by scholars because of the targeting of large civilian populations. Hiter's bombing of London is like-wise characterized as such.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The facts are from here [11]. Oppenheimer chairs the meeting. It's in his office and he sets the agenda. "Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection." You can read more about Oppenheimer but the debate of the scientists was generally about how to use the bomb in such a way to deter it's use. One group said demonstrate its power and make international law that forbade it's use. The other group said create as much damage as possible so that war itself becomes unthinkable in the nuclear age. That was the ethical debate. As it related to Japan, all the targets had some military value but the size of the weapon would have obliterated any military target. Without a sufficiently large target, the weapon wouldn't have even competed with conventional bombing in terms of it's destruction. The ethics of ending the war and ending all war was the debate. They chose the targets with these ethical goals in mind and to say otherwise is a libelous misrepresentation of their thoughts and beliefs. You can disagree with their assessment as a number of scholars and colleagues have, but questioning whether they knew the consequences of their actions or that they ignored it does them great disservice. --DHeyward (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That document does not support your claims. The part you are getting wrong is who has the power and who made the decisions? Where in this document do you see the ethical considerations being expressed, as you claim? The scientists did not have the power to make the descisions, either as you claim: they were workers taking orders. That was Oppenhheimer's role. To serve power based on the guildines that they were given, and he did so well. Even recommendations that they gave were not followed (such as the city selection itself). I am aware of his ethical considerations AFTER the bombings, and he is known for that. He felt he had blood on his hand. He also said that the hydrogen bomb has no military purpose and that it was necessarily a weapon of "mass terror." The people who had power were in the executive of the US govt, such as the Sec. of War, and Truman. You may be familiar with an exchange between Truman and Oppenheimer. This was when Oppenheimer confessed that he "had blood on his hands.” Truman was offended by Oppenheimer’s moralism and is quoted to have said, "Don't bring that fellow around here again,” he said. “After all, all he did was make the bomb. I’m the guy who fired it off.” By the way, Oppenheimer was stripped of his security clearance and then publicly humiliated for his raising these ethical issues. So much for him being in the corridor of power! When did he not fall in like with the Cold War’s obsession of a nuclear arms race and building an H bomb, he was persecuted. Again power vs the powerless. He was not in power. Those who were did not have these ethical considerations for their actions and plans. Do you have a source that says otherwise?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your arguing in circles. Your first statement was that the Targeting Committee didn't give weight to the ethics. I pointed out the targetting committee was Oppenheimer so you asked for a source. Now you claim that it wasn't the "targetting committee" but the People in Power(tm). So you think the person who chose Hiroshima as the target of first atomic bomb and also built the bomb itself is not in power? The minutes of the target committee shows that it's the scientists that are making the decisions on where to drop the weapon (i.e. the title of this article). Read and you will see that a) Oppenheimer knew and understood what he was building and what it would do to Hiroshima and b) he debated with other scientists over whether the gadget should be "used" or "demonstrated" and c)he recognized his role in ushering the nuclear age. You can characterize him as evil or heroic depending on your POV, but ignorant is not something that will fly and claiming that they didn't understand or debate the ethics is a claim of ignorance and it's not supported by the record. In fact, when Germany was defeated and it became clear that the real rivalry after the war would be the U.S. and the USSR, the debate between the scientists. These are readily available and include the petitions by the scientists in the various factions asking that the weapon not be dropped but only demonstrated, or development be stopped outright, etc ,etc. Oppenheimer corresponded with many of them and was fully aware of the different views and arguments and he still said "Hiroshima." --DHeyward (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

With the Mark Selden source discredited, we can still have a short paragraph stating that Ike and a few others were against hitting a city. Better yet would be a longer paragraph charting the scientists' and military leaders' arguments for and against bombing a population center. Fully referenced, of course. Such a paragraph would put paid to Selden's "fleeting discussion" and "outside the corridors of power" quote. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a fine idea, since it adds richness and context to the Selden quote, which is still completely accurate. The things mentioned by DHeyward are acknowledged in the quote, as "Despite fleeting discussions about demonstrating the power of the bomb at an uninhabited test site..." but it still true that these were "discussions which took place largely outside the corridors of power," and that according to Seldon, "the road to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially devoid of consideration of the ethical implications of its use." As I explained to WCM, "the road" included the previous fire bombings targeting civilian populations of Tokyo and the bombings of Dresden.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also your quote and understanding of it is a bit off - its not my quote. Its the quote I removed from the article. You seem to be confirming that it doesn't belong, so thats good: we agree William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What was a bit off was that you did not include the full quote. Also, as I explained, your understanding of the quote was off, too. Having read the book of which this is sourced form, I understand it better than you.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

NEW Video Links

some video links could be added:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCNbCubW860

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYn_vtr5WME&NR=1

just suggestions anyway :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.236.250 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

about JA link

JA link of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 2008-06-26 links to Japanese wikipedia disambiguation page, because in JA-wikipedia there are Atomic bombings of Hiroshima article and Atomic bombings of Nagasaki article. How do you think to make two JA-links? Thank you.Penpen (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

POWS/US Servicemen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Part 1:

• British POW survivor at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7460374.stm
• British POWS at Hiroshima at http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/camplists/hiroshima/hiro_5_Ube/hiro_5d_ube_main.html
• US POws victiums at http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter25/in180905hiroshima.html
• US POW Hiroshima at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040222/ai_n11444779
• US POWS of Hiroshima B-24 Lonesome Lady http://cglooperfamily.com/tribute.htm and http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/dec2002-jan2003/cartwright.htm and http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/Interviews/zapf_martin.html
• US POWS Of Hiroshima B-24 Taloa http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-24/44-40716.html
• US POWS of Hiroshima {US NAvy} http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/08/20_rubin_remembering-normand-brissette.htm & http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_200107/ai_n8987323
• British Pows at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/73/a2715473.shtml & http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/news.htm & http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2816073
• Dutch POws at http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20050805a7.html
• POW Camp at http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/camplists/fukuoka/fuk-14-nagasaki/fuku_14_nagasaki.html

• List of POWS who perished at Hiroshima:

B-24 "LOnesome Lady"

• Durden W. Looper
• Buford J. Ellison
• 2nd Lt James Ryan
• Sgt Hugh Atkinson
• Staff/Sgt Ralph Neal

B-24 "Taloa"

• Staff/Sgt Charles O. Baumgartner
• Staff/Sgt Julius Molnar

SBC2 from "USS Ticonderoga"

• Lt Raymond Porter
• AMC2 Norman Brissette

Part 2: US Servicemen exposed to radiation at Hiroshima/Nagasaki:

• See links at [[12]] & [[13]]

PArt 3: USAF Captain killed during Operation IVY at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy