Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 18

Link to debate article at end of opening paragraph?
I strongly feel that there should be a sentence at the end of the opening paragraph that says something like, "This first use of atomic weapons sparked much debate over ethics/reasons/necessity etc."

We do not want to make this article unreadable by putting conflicting viewpoints throughout it, but there should be a PROMINENT acknowledgement that this is one of the most debated acts of human history. All the actual debate should be put in the debate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriky (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * The only way you can call the atomic bombings 'terrorism' is with very precise context. For example, saying that all area bombing attacks on civilian targets during the Second World war could be referred to as 'terrorism' by 2008 standards. You cannot distinguish between the atomic bombings which killed 200,000 people, and conventional bombings which killed several million during the same war. Thus, by that definition, 'terrorist' nations in WWII include The USA, the UK, France, Canada, Italy, Poland, Germany, Japan, China, The USSR, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and probably others, who at one point or another engaged in areal bombardment of civilians.


 * However, as the February 1923 hague conmventions on aireal warfare were never adopted, these acts were not even against international law. In essence, trying to label these acts as 'terrorism' or any such modern pejorative with 60+ years of hindsight is just silly.Nordenfeldt (talk) 16:04, 23 July 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. -- MQ Duck 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It can't be simply called Terrorism, it is mass burning tens of thousands of families, children and other civilians. Killing soldiers during the war, is just called war. But this operation can't be called Terrorism, to mass burn tens of thousands of families, in order to stop a "war" which may take more lives or have "more costs". They couldn't test those Satanic weapons somewhere else, for example in a battlefield? Shaahin (talk) 20:25, 7 November 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)


 * Indeed, this is not a place for those "Anti" ones. As a person who suffered from mass destruction missiles, I am very much against any kind of satanic destruction weapon. I don't think one can blame all the America for what was happened then, but it is a shame for the Military. This shouldn't lead to another kind of hatred, war is enough. Shaahin (talk) 21:00, 7 November 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. -- MQ Duck 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Just as a nit... The target was a major industrial center, which is a legitimate military target at that time. If you are not going to use the legal definition of Terrorism, then there is no justification for calling it such, unless you want to use personal definitions. Jokem (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is generally defined as non-conventional means being used to attack an enemy. The bombings of civilian areas during World War Two were prevalent from both the axis and allies, and was certainly a conventional tactic to attack an enemy. The United States used overwhelming force when they used the atomic bombs. It is certainly not terrorism to build a better weapon than your enemy. In war, the general population is not free from the dangers. Within United States history, General Sherman's march through Georgia is a very similar event. Both events broke the will of the general population to continue supporting a war. It is not my belief that the Atomic Bombings of Japan were acts of terrorism, as argued by my previous words. 71.241.212.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I choose to look at it this way: That war had to end. To say we'd had enough was to put it disgustingly lightly. Hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had already died. Say what you want about morals, it was going to take something unimaginably earthshattering to stop the manic Japanese. We reduced much of Tokyo to ash through firebombings that killed as many as Hiroshima yet the Japanese still would not relent. I shudder to think of the scale of the human carnage had we not dropped the bombs and invaded the home islands instead. 1.75 million total military dead in the invasion alone, a popular guesstimate I've heard some military historians give, is probably conservitive. Hundreds of Japanese civilians on Okinawa were strongly encouraged (if not forced) to commit suicide rather than give in to the Americans. On the home islands, that number would be in the tens of thousands. Ask any GI who saw the ferocity with which the Japanese fought to hold onto every little strip of sand the Americans took and you'll be glad we had the atomic bomb as an option. It was going to take something on par with the atom bomb, which held power the Japanese thought rested only with God, to make it stop. Of the few options we had to end that war, reducing two cities and a good portion of their populations to a memory was, sadly, the best way. Note, it took two, not one, to force a surrender. This should speak without words the intensity of the Japanese resolve. -- Hurricane  ERIC  - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 04:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A few comments, mostly to the preceeding entry: This discussion page is littered with commentary worthy of a 4th graders conversation, or primetime news talkshow (Anderson Cooper, Hannity and Colmes, whatever, take your pick). There is no point in debating whether the actions that occurred over 60 years ago were correct or not, especially given the fact that it was a period of time in which people were made to kill others, in which, sadly, anything goes. If anything, I would expect someone to at least state a different opinion, such as "The bomb could have been dropped on an uninhabited island to show the Japanese, who (to quote our especially astute previous poster) thought that this power that rested only with God, what it could have done to theirs cities." But, of course, those who visit the discussion page of Wikipedia articles that contain information on an historical event that has virtually no tangible impact on current life (again, such as our especially astute previous poster) could not be expected to give such pithy commentary. Let's get right into the last post, then. "This should speak without words the intensity of the Japanese resolve," is the onymoronical "slightly" to the "pregnant" (or "jumbo" to the "shrimp," if you prefer) that you have decided to write about up until your ill-placed last sentence, Mr. E. Brown. To have the audacity to assume that the Japanese, an entire people, or anyone, for that matter, in the 40's, now, or dating back to pre-historic times, would share a collective 'manic' personality is very insulting, not to mention idiotic. The entire post is a tribute to a mind that cannot appreciate the fact that the Japanese are, despite many of their social-minded activities and actions, are very much a group of people made up of individuals just like the America you grew up in, Mr. E Brown. To state that what happened was the best way just speaks to the inability of many of the posters on this page to think critically about what may have been a better way to deal with the situation. Don't they teach that in high school anymore, Mr. E. Brown? The note that it took two, not one, to force a surrender truly shows your respect for those manic Japanese. And the knowledge shared by those who have decided to post here of the Japanese is truly stunning, summed up perfectly in the previous posts' quote that "It was going to take something on par with the atom bomb, which held power the Japanese thought rested only with God, to make it stop." Which God with a capital G would that have been? If you read any other Wikipedia articles or books (rather than talk to people, which I'm positive you are likely incapable of) about the situation, you will encounter a discussion of the belief system of Japan, which will, from the start, enlighten you as to the lack of a singular god. (Just to add a little personal touch, let me applaud your insincerity in bolding the previously mentioned statement. Bravo.) Just to finish up, don't you think that it's a little funny to hear the world 'projection' intermingled with 'historian?' 1.75 million dead projected by the military historians? Go on predicting the past and wasting your time commenting on Wikipedia articles, Mr. E. Brown. We living out here in the real world, making pacts with and deepening our understandings of different people in multiple countries around the world are certainly better off in our jobs not having to run into philistine idiots such as yourself. (Oh, and labeling anything surrounding WWII as an act of terrorism is unconstructive, wasteful, stupid thinking. Thankfully we don't have to run into people such as yourselves either.) 122.212.73.205 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of terrorisme. Technically, all military action is about making your opponent do something based on the fear that the action inspires. Almost all military action is effectively targeted at non-combatants since non-combatants generally make decisions. As such, given such a broad definition of terrorism, almost all, if not all, military acts are terrorism. This of course makes the definition useless (since we already have a word for military action) and therefore, another must be applied. 76.27.192.231 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Burning tens of thousands of civilians at once, is a Satanic mass murder. Terror is something else, even though killing civilians by any government is called terror. Shaahin (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Satanic?? You're waaay off base. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Off base? That decision was right then? The former US President could order a use for those weapons on the battlefield and show the deadly effect, not by burning cities. How do you call burning thousands of children at once? I'm speaking from a military point of view, and against bombing civilians. Shaahin (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm capable of stating my opinion without making personal attacks and still refuse to make any. I think 122's incindiary comments speak for themselves. Just because I said I thought it was the best way doesn't mean I think there was anything good about it. There was absolutely nothing good about the Pacific War. The brutality of it was simply horrific. I just believe that anyone who thinks that war was going to end with a bunch of raised hands and a handshake are kidding themselves. Ask any WWII vet who served in the Pacific and I bet they'll agree on at least that much. Also, I think when the US heard what the Japanese did in China and what they were doing to American prisoners, they felt a little better about a sudden, brutal decline in American mercy. How would you feel if you were an innocent Chinese civilian man forced at gunpoint to watch while Japanese soldiers grabbed your infant child by its feet and smashed its head into the ground and then gang raped your wife? How would you feel if you'd been starved of food and treated like cattle for 3-4 years as you watched some Japanese use your best friends for bayonet practice? I'm not saying that makes it all ok, but as a psychological factor you simply can't ignore it. We have the luxury now of looking back 60 years later without having to deal with the emotions people were going through at the time. If you really analyze the time period surrounding a historical event and what those people were facing, you can better understand why that event occured. I try to look at it objectively and not allow my emotions to take over. I also recognize that it is impossible for most Americans, including myself, to look at it with complete objectivity. Hell, my great uncle was in the Bataan Death March. Does that affect my opinion on the matter? Maybe...in some way. I also understand the opinions of those who say military conflicts should stay military conflicts. I see the logic of the viewpoint that dropping an atom bomb just offshore of Tokyo would've sent a powerful message. I just don't think it would've made the Japanese just all of a sudden throw up their hands and say 'We quit'. There were still Japanese generals arguing violently to fight on even after Nagasaki. As a side note, it took Hiroshima for mankind to see the true horror of nuclear power that we now know all too well. At the time, we didn't understand all the lasting consequences of its use. Those were the days when cigarettes were thought of as a great relaxant and would keep you warm in the cold. My goal is to help people understand the historical context, not to condone mass murder of innocent civilians (which, by the way, the Japanese did plenty of and still refuse to admit it). Even the most pius and moral man has a point where he simply can't take anymore. America reached that point at Okinawa. And I believe that had we not dropped the bombs, the number of military and civilian casualties would've been much higher. Truman had a choice: allow the military slaughter to continue and fight tooth and nail all the way to Tokyo, or do something sudden and inhumane. He recognized that America was tired of watching their sons die and chose to do what went against everything he morally believed in. After I post this, people will misconstrue my words and possibly lash out with fury and expletives. If you hear nothing else, hear this: I hate what happened as much as anybody, but I understand why it was done and am at peace with it. Attack me all you want, I've said all I'm going to say. -- Hurricane  ERIC  - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant?
Please take a look at the last paragraph. I think to mention about Ōkunoshima in this article is irrelevant. I posted about my opinion on the editor 's page. What do you think? Oda Mari (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Did the USA know about the island in 1945? The island was never air raided during the war. I think the citation is needed if the paragraph should be included in the article. Oda Mari (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This NYT article says 'there is no indication that Americans knew about the poison gas factory in August 1945 or that it was a reason why Hiroshima was selected to be the target of the first atomic bomb. The island is 30 miles from the center of Hiroshima, and it was unaffected by the bombing.' Oda Mari (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like not enough relevance for its cite here. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The excerpt is not on the «choice of target» section, not on the «Hiroshima during the war» section. Therefore, it is useful for the general reader to learn that there was this factory in the Hiroshima Prefecture, (which is by the way the message of the NYT article...). However, I would agree with the consensus if most users think the article is better without this info... --Flying tiger (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave it out. Interesting but unrelated to the article. There may be a place elsewhere, but not here 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed. Oda Mari (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

genocide?
no mention of the word in the article. why is that? Lakinekaki (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proably the same reason the word "ice-cream" isn't mentioned in the article either? Its just not applicable. Dman727 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Insinuation that my question is so far fetched as is your ice-cream example is quite an illustration of your character. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. Juvenile, personal attacks WP:NPA don't really phase me any.  If you think Genecocide should be in the article, gather up some reliable sources get to work adding it.  I don't think it has application here, but consensus is consensus. Dman727 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, beyond question the atomic bombings satisfy the definition of genocide given in the UN CPPCG. Despite the clarity of the definition these kind of things are unfortunately controversial. When it comes to western state crimes you need at least 100 years before they can begin to be discussed seriously and a spoon can be called a spoon. Domminico (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. If the United States had wanted to kill all the Japanese people, they wouldn't have sought or accepted a surrender. If genocide were the goal, there would be less than a million Japanese people alive today. Though California had already passed all its anti-Japanese immigration laws and even though most Americans thought of Japanese people as being racially inferior, genocide was not the point of atomic bombs on Japan, nor of conventional firebombing of Japanese cities (which killed more Japanese than the atomic drops.) The point was to bring Japan to surrender. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I contend with the statement most Americans thought the japanese were racially inferior. I suggest since the Japanese were from a very different culture, and the fact that the Japanese Empire had made the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, it was more true Americans tended to think of Japanese as untrustworthy, not inferior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you would know if you had read the definition, "deliberation" is neither here nor there. Intent is quite irrelevant.Domminico (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not actually "beyond question", though the word does get tossed around from time to time. See Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * —WWoods (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is if you can read: Genocide-
 * "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or _in part_, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or _in part_..."Domminico (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have read (but I don't remember where) that some observers feel that the entire Allied bombing campaign against Japan, including the fire bombings of the cities in addition to the employment of the atomic bombs, may have been an attempt at genocide of the Japanese people by some Allied leaders. If you can find a source that actually says this, you can place it in the article by saying, "So-and-so states in his/her book book title that the use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of an overall strategy of genocide by Allied leaders that included the entire bombing campaign against Japan" or something like that.  You need a good source, though, and it needs to be written neutrally like in my example here or someone will probably remove it. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That loose definition pretty much removes any meaning from the word. Using that definition we can reclassify every war that has ever been waged in the history of mankind as genocide. Even many street gang wars would fit that  definition. Words do change of course and if thats whats happening, well fine.  But it sounds like we'll need to invent a new word to describe what Genocide used to be.Dman727 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

<--The US military during WWII did not try to kill all Japanese. If they had, it would have been genocide. However, where there were concentrated groups of Japanese who were working in war production, a great effort was made to kill as many of them as possible. That isn't genocide, it's war. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

— Why must I point out the obvious? Why must I get my head cut off for it? Perhaps I am masochistic. This is to the potentially silly people (could be Americans or their sympathizers) … who required an attempt to kill “all” is required for Genocide. Hmmm … interesting … the UN Definition of Genocide clearly does not require an attempt to “kill all” … but just a significant portion – “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Deliberately targeting of citizens is of course a war crime, and the use of a weapon of mass destruction, which clearly targets innocent people, would be Genocide. That definition is not a “loose definition pretty much removes any meaning from the word” … but is quite clear and specific (I have not committed Genocide, nor any one I personally know thankfully). Any small school child would understand that specific definition. Perhaps it is time people reconciled with the crimes committed by governments, including their own of the past. Popularity does not justify anything potentially evil … nor can it re-write what actions happened. Something happened ... it killed lots and lots of innocent people (I think definition of evil is covered there) ... that's life ... deal with it. Nonprof. Frinkus 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Frinkus

I wonder if all those who are calling the atomic bombings genocide would also be willing to call the Japanese actions in China genocide, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Methinks not... The bombing achieved its military goal. If the US wanted to engage in genocide against Japan they would have bombed Tokyo. In fact the US was rather generous towards Japan. They could very well have done exactly what Japan did to China - instead they helped rebuild Japan into one of the most successful nations on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.11.199 (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I will just add that if the atomic bombings did not occur then Japan would presently be Russian territory. As horrible as it is to say, Japan is extremely lucky the atomic bombings occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.11.199 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:58.178. etc... Your comment about Tokyo is wildly mistaken. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, wounded more people and dehoused more people than either of the atomic bombs.
 * Regarding genocide definitions, it's such a debated topic that there's a page here called Genocide definitions. User:Frinkus clearly takes the "in whole or in part" definitions to heart, with an emphasis on "in part." Me, I side with Henry Huttenbach who says "Genocide is any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy." The Japanese weren't going to be wiped from the map by US bombing. Their continued existence was never in question. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

— How dare someone insinuate that I would not correctly regard Japan's actions in China were not genocide? Japan′s actions clearly were genocide. Just because the Japan′s military, under administration of their military government, did it (and they clearly did), did not justify any victimization of women and children at home. More people justifying why atomic weapons were useful, like at obliterating innocent civilians. And again, the UN definition appears to (and probably legally applies to), any large portion of victims based on ethnicity or locale … without any qualifier to put entire peoples in jeopardy (that was not written into the UN charter, so obviously is clearly does not apply). Perhaps we should try somehow to stick with official definitions for Wikipedia. Peace be with you. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Frinkus

Well if you don't want this to happen don't start a war with a much more powerful country! Basically according to some of the definitions of genocide being bandied around here any war whatsoever qualifies as genocide (clearly not the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.1.72 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of the war was to strike fear and cause a surrender. The killing was simply a mean to an end. In genocide, the killing is the end. It had nothing to do with genocide. 76.27.192.231 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

you can't find a single article about any major event in history, past or present, without someone in the discussion board attempting to inject anti-American sentiment into the article. While the atomic bombs targeted civilians of an enemy nation, the terrorist acts of Imperial Japan come far closer to the definition of "genocide". Yes, innocent people died in the atomic bombings, clocking in at a little under 1 million. But through Japanese atrocities (Bataan Death March, Rape of Nan King, etc. etc.) multiple millions of innocent people died, singled out by race, not membership in an "enemy" nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"through Japanese atrocities (Bataan Death March, Rape of Nan King, etc. etc.) multiple millions of innocent people died, singled out by race, not membership in an "enemy" nation" sounds like American propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.188.102 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So now there is debate if Japan was an enemy to USA? It is very clear in history that USA wished to try and stay out of the Wars going on. It was Japan at its own will to try and cripple our Pacific fleet to prevent them from wreaking havoc in the Pacific that forced us to enter into war with them. If they wish to wake the sleeping beast then they shouldn't cry when their cities are laid to waste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki= Hirohito and Nagako
Did the US deliberately choose the two cities to be atom bombed or was it purely coincidental that the names of the two cities were similar to the Emperor and Empress of Japan at that time, Hirohito and Nagako?

118.100.97.102 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the first I've heard of it and I've been studying the bombing for four decades. I'd say your coincidence is reaching too far. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They choose 2 dense cities as their targets to maximize casualties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.188.102 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bombing survey conjecture
I deleted a paragraph that quotes the 1946 USAF Bombing Survey. This paragraph is fully present at the article Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it is well-represented on Wikipedia. Here, it appears to me to sidetrack the chronological flow -- it interrupts the reader's clear understanding of how the decisions of US leaders led to the two explosions. Binksternet (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It interrupts the current version's description of how the decisions of US leaders led to the two explosions. There are validly and reliably referenced alternative views. We represent all or none. Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hit the enter key by mistake; the Strategic Bombing Survey was not a factor in Truman's decision to drop the bombs.
 * —WWoods (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The section about Potsdam and Truman concerns Truman's decision to employ the bomb. The phrase "his stated intention" makes it clear that we are talking about Truman's own words and not a motive that someone else ascribed to him. The only "alternative views" are either 1) he didn't actually say that; or 2) he had other undisclosed motives. Neither conclusion is supported by the 1946 USAF Strategic Bombing Survey ("SBS"). The SBS is part of the post-bombing debate and is already discussed in that article.

Also, the "all or none" attitude espoused here and in prior edit comments, and the "Anglo-American POV Uber-ales" comments on User_talk:Sarah777, do not suggest of a desire to reach consensus. The editors who removed the SBS paragraph, myself included, made it clear that this was a concern over the organization of the article. Simishag (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the detail in question here yet, but I know that notable and verified information that is suitable for the article isn't supposed to just be deleted (per MOS). It needs to be placed somewhere else, if that was indeed the problem here. So as it has been deleted, you should all be talking here about where it can in fact go...


 * Also, if someone opened a discussion like that in their talk, it probably should remain there, I feel.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As two people have already said, that exact quote is already included, in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * —WWoods (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewording
I suggest we could change the wording of the part which says this was done at the end of WWII to saying it was near the end of WWII, or contributed to the end of WWII. The way it is worded now suggests it was some sort of vengence strike done after the war was over. Jokem (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting resources

 * John Pilger article - in today's Guardian. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently Matt, the information in that article doesn't fit anywhere in this article!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got his collected journalism somewhere - he will have references in it. I'll list the important ones here when I have the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Pilger's opinion relevant to this article? Simishag (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His opinions aren't particularly relevant here (there is a subpage for that). The facts he began with on the reporting of the events clearly are.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Historians generally don't consider the Strategic Bombing Survey Summary a reliable source anymore.   Furthermore, that quote doesn't actually say anything about the reasons for dropping the bomb!
 * (And anyway, to judge by that Guardian article, and his own Wikipedia article, Pilger's a bit of a nut.)
 * —WWoods (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not an historian, I can see! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, to you both by the way. Thanks for making me welcome in the true Wikipedia style! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two new sections are needed: on Reporting of the events in the West, and Cultural legacy
Going by the current structure, two new sections are clearly needed:

1) Reporting of the events in the West.
 * The New York Times ran an article called "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" (it was supposed to be blast damage only). An Australian journalist called Wilfred Burchett ran a scoop that countered this in the Daily Express. Where is all this information?

2) Cultural legacy
 * The sub-articles (such as the 'maidens' and the museum) must be covered in some way in this main one, per MOS guidelines.

A fourth paragraph could then be added to the Introduction to cover some of the cultural impact (and intros normally have 4 parags per recommended MOS guidelines). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The MOS does not say "intros normally have 4 paragraphs". WP:LEAD says "the lead should contain up to four paragraphs". WP:LEAD says "3 to 4 paragraphs" for an article of this size. I don't oppose adding new sections but keep in mind that the cultural legacy/impact includes things like the dawn of the atomic age, impact on warfare, the Cold War, etc. Summarizing this in the lead will be difficult. The NYT article strikes me as wartime propaganda and only interesting as a footnote, but perhaps contemporary press coverage should be considered part of the cultural impact as well. Simishag (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth in college professors claims
My college professor claims that most major American historians now agree that America intentionally delayed the Japnanese surrender so that they would get a chance to drop the two bombs and show their power to the Soviets. Is there any truth to this? It goes against everything I have read previously, I was hoping to find some information on wiki but the article doesn't seem to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.104.209 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Surrender of Japan and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and their various references.
 * —WWoods (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Western point of view
I think it is quite west-centric the way this article is arranged. I think it should have a { {Globalise} } label but I'm not sure where. --Jane McCann (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, what would you see changed? Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I speak Japanese and have been to the Hiroshima Bomb Museum in Hiroshima, and the majority of what is written in this article is similar or the same to the Japanese viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan Section
I believe that the capitalization of "We" and "Our" in the translation of Hirohito's speech is unnecessary and inaccurate, given that the Japanese language does not even have a concept of capitalization, and even the most self-righteous words for "I","we", and "our" in Japanese don't even come close to referring to oneself as Godlike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. Oda Mari (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should copyedit quotations and reverted the change. See 大東亞戰爭終結ノ詔書. The translation of the announcement by the Japanese government used capitalized "We" and "Our" for singular pronouns that refer to the Emperor. --Kusunose 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Kusunose in thinking that the capitalizations are appropriate. I think the caps are akin to European royalty speaking in stilted imperial fashion and are the closest we can come in English to the old-fashioned manner of imperial speech used by Hirohito. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. I'm so sorry for the edit. Yes, both of you are right. Please forgive me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of the bombings in literature, drama and the arts
I'm sure this topic ("Treatment of the bombings in literature, drama and the arts") is so large that it could easily occupy several articles. So, I'm surprised that there is no mention of these at all. Seems to me that this is such a major theme in literature, drama and the arts that it deserves some coverage in Wikipedia. The two examples I know of are Barefoot Gen and a book about Sadako Sasaki but this doesn't begin to scratch the surface. I don't begin to know how to cover the theme but I thought I'd throw the idea out here for discussion and see if it inspires anybody who has more knowledge of this. Perhaps we could start with several List of... articles like List of films about the atomic bombing of Japan and List of novels about the atomic bombing of Japan, etc. --Richard (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably better to start with one article and see if it needs to be split. We used to have a section on culture, which you could copy to start with.
 * —WWoods (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be better to start off with a List of media adaptations of the atomic bombings of Japan (or separate ones for each bombing). Then. if there are enough of a particular format they can be split off the main list. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaflets
Hi,

I notice that there is no reference to the leaflets the US dropped warning Japanese civilians of the bombings (discussed here).

In addition, the current article states that "[t]he area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations". However, this is directly contradicted in one of the cited sources and not at all mentioned in the other.

Can someone please explain this to me? If nobody does, I will make appropriate edits in a few days' time.

Thank you, Brainfsck (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no warning leaflets about the atomic bombs. If you are talking about this, see Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 8 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 14. Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the leaflets part. Oda Mari (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up; I can't read Japanese and assumed that Hiroshima was listed on the leaflet. I think it would be helpful for the article to directly state that "the citizens of Hiroshima were not warned of the incoming atomic bomb" because I see a lot of misinformation and assertions to the contrary. Brainfsck (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a statement that the citizens of Hiroshima were not warned of the incoming atomic bomb. Brainfsck (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Manga to add
A stunning autobiographic manga by Keiji Nakazawa, showing everyday life of a family just before and after the bombing as seen through the eyes of seven-year-old Gen Nakaoka - http://www.lastgasp.com/d/24085/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crickxson (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Date and time
The bombs were dropped on 6 and 9 August - is this US time or Japan time? As the two countries are on either side of the International Date Line, when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) it would have been in the afternoon of the previous day in the US. I can't tell from the context of this article if it was dropped 6 Aug Japan time/5 Aug US time; or 7 Aug Japan time/6 Aug US time - and likewise for the Nagasaki bomb. As there is this problem with giving dates when the actions/countries involved straddle the International Date Line, surely it should be made clear whose dates we are giving - or give both? (BTW I'm guessing the 6th and 9th are US time, as the victors normally write the history.) Jasper33 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for any confusion. All articles on Wikipedia are written using times local to the context of the article. That's the only way to make things not confusing. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

steven prater —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.213.215.126 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Double Survivor
Perhaps a short note and link can be made to the article on Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only confirmed double hibakusha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by undated (talk • contribs)


 * Someone has already added it. Annihilatron (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the actual death toll from Hiroshima was a little over 75,000. Nowhere close to 140,000 as it says in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contender0309 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The citations provided give various numbers, which the article already reflects. Hohum (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Debate around the effects of the dropping the bombs
There is a big difference between the German and the English versions of this page. On the English page, the presentation of the debate around the effects of dropping the bombs is comparatively superficial. The German version, by contrast, points out that historical research has come to the general conclusion that the bombs had no impact on the Japanese decision to surrender. The Japanese surrender was immanent, i.e. just a matter of days. This was known to the Americans and the Russians well before the bombs were dropped. What's lacking in both versions of this article, however, is the fact that the Russians were encouraged to invade Manchuria when the Americans informed them about the existence of the bombs and their intentions to drop them. Hence, I think a lot of work still needs to be done to make the English version more factual, incorporating the results of historical research into the presentation of the debate, and the German version could also use some improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgmbennett (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, they must be using different sources. We should combine and share sources to come to some kind of consensus (even if in the end it has to be a consensus that there is no general consensus).Rayjameson (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Truman's name.
Early in the article it refers to Harry S. Truman. This is incorrect as the president had no middle name. The "S" was an initial only and thus the correct spelling of his name is Harry S Truman. Liefhebber (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, no. Take a look at Harry S. Truman. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Prisoners of war
According to this part of the Neutrality rules : "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think mention to the prisoners of war in the casualties subsection is giving undue weight to a verified fact. There are 85 words on the 80,000 to 200,000 casualties, so putting 12 words on the prisoners of war is giving them an overdue weight. SDelroen 220.107.62.6 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability is not just in sheer numbers, it's also in interest to the reader. This can't be quantified absolutely; it must be judged using popular sources and common sense. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Binksternet; not to mention it would leave out a major component, regardless if someone doesn't think so today. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Binksternet. Too much detail on POWs would tilt the article, but I don't think the WP policy means we should exclude any mention at all. A reasonable mention for historical interest is appropriate. Further, one could extend that reasoning to ask why any individual victims were mentioned at all. Edited for clarity Geogene (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are examples of this all over Wikipedia; one being the mention of women pilots at Soviet Air Force page. The three women's flying regiments were not so significant in the larger scheme of World War II, but they are an interesting story to tell nonetheless. Readers want to know. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

USS Indy
I came here to look for the name of the ship but there is no mention. Perhaps a 1-2 sentence addition is warranted. I don't know much about the USS Indianapolis. User F203 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're looking for USS Indianapolis (CA-35). I don't think this article needs to talk about the various efforts culminating in getting all the bombing materials together so that the mission could take place. This article is about the bombing missions and results, not so much about the Manhattan Project and subsequent transportation details. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources
Since it would pose a COI for me to add to this entry, I offer the following sources:

"Behind the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Chicago 1944-45", Alice Kimball Smith, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1958. http://books.google.com/books?id=lgkAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA288

"Statements on the Second Anniversary of Hiroshima," By M. L. Oliphant and R. E. Peierls, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1947. http://books.google.com/books?id=yg0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA235

"'Always' the target," Arjun Makhijani, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1995.http://books.google.com/books?id=PgwAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA23

"The continuing body count at Hiroshima and Nagasaki," By Frank Barnaby, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 1977. http://books.google.com/books?id=gAsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48

"Still surviving Hiroshima," Hugh Gusterson, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August 1, 2007. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/still-surviving-hiroshima

White Light, Black Rain, HBO Documentary. http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/whitelightblackrain/ Atomicgurl00 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian and British participation in the Manhattan Project
The source for the statement that Canada and Great Britain were collaborators in the Manhattan Project is from a doubtful source. I recommend that this be stricken from the article until more authoritative sources can be cited. The website pointed to by the current citation has no verifiable credentials that grant statements found on the web page to be authoritative or conclusive proof of truthfulness. Additionally, the author of the cited web page does not use any citations within his/her statements to lend any credence to their voracity. 70.170.125.247 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how authoritative Gordon Edwards or CCNR is, but apparently he has been published regarding this here. Hohum (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to an online copy of the Quebec Agreement in case the current reference is unsuitable. Hohum (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its also very well known that there was a lot of work going on at Birmingham University under Rudolf Peierls that actually predated the Manhattan Project. Amongst other things theirs was the earliest estimation (wrong as it happens) of the critical mass of Uranium 235. If you study this in detail you will also find out just how great the British contribution to the Manhattan project was - diffusion barriers (ICI were asked to look at this and their ideas were integrated into Manhattan, methods of implosion (including one of the key workers in this area, one Klaus Fuchs). The source that you apparently think to be shaky will tell you that Tube Alloys was eventually integrated into the Manhattan Project. Most of this can be found in "Richard Rhodes: The Making of the Atomic Bomb". This is as good a source as you will find. Of course if your aim is to show that it was a purely American effort nothing will convince you. Soarhead77 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In "The last 1000 days of the British empire" it talks about brits helping the Manhattan project. --Conor Fallon (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Postponement of Initial Deployment to August 6
The article indicates that "clouds" obstructing the target was the reason for postponement of the initial bombing from August 2 to August 6. This is erroneous, or at least incomplete, information. The reason provided by most contemporaneous accounts of the subject was a typhoon in the vicinity of Japan in the Pacific potentially affecting air operations. While the typhoon may have caused the cloud cover, the fuller reason for the postponement of the event was the typhoon. See, for instance, the ship's log of the U.S.S. Indiana at, indicating that shipping operations were curtailed off Japan from July 31 through August 3, 1945 because of the typhoon. --75.93.217.79 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted by author excuse my dyslexia Mstreman (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Japanese Realization of the bombing
The article contins the following anecdote:

''Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizeable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and that the explosion was just a rumor.''

''The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly one hundred miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, immediately began to organize relief measures.''

This anecdote is vague and unreferenced. The references given in the preceeding and following paragrpahs do not support it. I have not been able to find confirmation of this story elsewhere. The author of this article needs to provide references to support this story, or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresearch (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

War ending after bombs dropped not related to bombs being dropped
This has nothing to do with the actual dropping of the bombs and should be removed.


 * Much has been written about the connection between the two bombs and the end of the war. It must be included. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briandb1222 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

These need their own articles, these events are not just something you can lump together, they are separated by time and place, and the kind of weapon used, TOTALLY. Also, im pretty sure there is enough of horror and human suffering in these both cases of MASS MURDER to warrant a article of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The articles do not need to be separate. The events are very much related given the short time span they happened in and the fact that both bombs were part of the Manhattan Project. Davidpdx (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Americans have long thought of the two bombings together, as the same basic event. There was only one military order being followed, and one bombing group trained to carry out the mission. However, if someone wanted to make this into two articles, it would allow more detail. This article could remain in place, because there are a host of common issues to the bombing, and the two daughter articles could describe at length the damage and reaction of each city. Almost no text would need to be cut from this one. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. The only real reason would be to POV push as evidenced by the unidentified IP's message above. If you don't believe, please take a look at a similar comment the same person put on the talk page for Paul Tibbets article . The articles about this subject are subject to that kind of stuff as is, but breaking apart the articles really gives those who have a ulterior motive to inject an alterative history into the articles.


 * The two events were so closely related and share much of the same back ground information that I can't see why they should be seperate. Davidpdx (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered without regard to possible POV pushing editors. I was imagining a pair of daughter articles that were both factual and descriptive, with enough greater detail that inclusion here would be thought of as too much. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think possible POV pushing and vandalism should be taken into account. This article as well as the other articles that have to do with the bombings endure quite a bit of both. This is one of the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia in my opinion. The two events are related and much of the information would just be duplicated. Often the vandalism goes on for long periods of time before the person is banned and then the whole process starts over. Call me skeptical, but that's one of the reasons if you look at my edit history I don't even bother much anymore. I'd rather see effort put into improving the article and adding information from legitimate sources to make it better rather then breaking it into two. I know you have good intensions, like I said I'm more worried about whether doing so will make it easier for others to inject revisionist history into the articles. Davidpdx (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW the unregistered IP is from Kouvola Finland. Davidpdx (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Two more reasons to make them seperate articles:


 * 1)  I had difficulty finding "Hiroshima" on this list: Category:20th-century_explosions I think each explossion should get its own page.
 * 2)  They are two different pages in the Japanese Wikipedia.  Lumping them together because of their connection in the Manhattan Project could be reflective of a US regional viewpoint. --Zaurus (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

number of casualties
The article says most estimates of immediate casualties in Hiroshima are around 70,000. German news magazine spiegel online gives a range from 90,000 to 200,000. Does anyone know reliable sources? Knopffabrik (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * /Archive 8 (2006) has various estimates from several sources. Since then, RERF seems to have upped their estimate to 90,000−166,000 acute (i.e. within two to four months) deaths in Hiroshima.
 * —WWoods (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only man recognized as a survivor of both atom bombs dropped in Japan at the end of World War II has died Monday January 11 2010 after a battle with stomach cancer. He was 93.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/japan.bomb.victim.dies/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
How about an infobox? In particular the infobox military conflict one. username 1 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant or germane
"a then-nameless aircraft later called Necessary Evil (the photography aircraft) was commanded by Captain George Marquardt."

Was this plane named because of the atomic bombings? If not, the fact is irrelevant.

Since no support is provided that Necessary Evil was later named because of the bombings--in the article on the bombings or the article on the plane itself--why is this 'fact' included? Also, the 'loaded language' of the name tips it out of NPOV. In other words, it's a tad weaselly. 68Kustom (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reporting information from reliable sources isn't NPOV, nor loaded language, nor weasely. Its wikipedia page, sourced from a book about the aircraft involved says "It was named and had its nose art painted after the Nagasaki mission." Like other aircraft involved, its name reflected its involvement; e.g. another was later named Up An' Atom.
 * A mention of, and a link to the article of an involved plane is obviously germane and relevant.Hohum (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hohum. The name "Necessary Evil" is a fascinating tidbit.  I did not know the planes that dropped the bomb were accompanied by other planes, and found this revelation intriguing when I read this article.  The names of things are vital for doing other web searches, index searches in books, etc.  To remove a valuable fact like this would be a shame.  CosineKitty (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge request
My request for comment about merging the section about hibakusha from this article into the main hibakusha article was taken off of this page, but not the hibakusha page, after only five hours without any comment as to a decision one way or the other. I was paying attention to the hibakusha talk page, and not this page, so I didn't notice that it had barely been up before it was taken off this page, which I don't think allowed for any proper discussion to occur. However, I went ahead and added the information from this page to the hibakusha article without taking anything out of this page,  That article needs a lot of fleshing out and expansion, so if anyone is interested, please go to the hibakusha page to help out. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Genocide?
Interestingly enough, killing a few thousand war criminals can be called GENOCIDE if someone with real agenda wants that. But here, more than hundred thousand people, mostly civilians were killed. With plans to kill many many more. And this is not a genocide? How is that? Seems really "impartial" to me. Neikius (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was war, and the U.S. wanted to get the damn thing over ASAP. The firebombing campaign was in direct opposition to established USAAF policies of precision bombing, but precision bombing didn't work. As a result, the B-29s dropped incendiaries and burned out a huge amount of built-up city area in Japan, and killed about as many civilians as the two atomic bombs did. Genocide was not on the agenda—making Japan surrender was. Look at how mild the occupation of Japan was afterward! Letting the emperor stay in place is not the sign of a genocidal conqueror. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some books/essays on the US firebombing campaign and the two atomic bombs do note that there may have some genocidal motivation by some of the decision makers involved on the US side. These works include:
 * Dower, John, (1987) War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War, Pantheon
 * Among others. This article really needs someone to sit down and effectively synthesize (yes, synthesize) all of the notable commentary, opinion, and perspective that have been written on this event. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The killing of hundreds of thousands civilians is a war crime. ;) That should be mentioned in the article. --Vicente2782 (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If so, then for balance the article should also mention the thousands upon thousands of civilians throughout Asia who were killed by the Japanese, and of course the MILLIONS of Chinese who died. Fred8615 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, having lived somewhere that suffered under Japanese rule you can add Koreans to that list. The word gencide is a pretty open ended term if you look at the definition. If a Neonazi bombed an African-American church and killed 10 people you could by any definition call it gencide because they inflicted harm and killed people. While the example would be murder, I don't think it would fall under gencide, even though it aptly fits the definition given by the UN.
 * If so, then for balance the article should also mention the thousands upon thousands of civilians throughout Asia who were killed by the Japanese, and of course the MILLIONS of Chinese who died. Fred8615 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, having lived somewhere that suffered under Japanese rule you can add Koreans to that list. The word gencide is a pretty open ended term if you look at the definition. If a Neonazi bombed an African-American church and killed 10 people you could by any definition call it gencide because they inflicted harm and killed people. While the example would be murder, I don't think it would fall under gencide, even though it aptly fits the definition given by the UN.


 * Could you call the bombing of Pearl Harbor gencide? What about the 9/11 attacks? (yes they were terrorism, but wiping out Americans was the aim of the terroists). Certainly the killing of Jewish people was. Personally, I think what would or wouldn't be gencide is pretty vague.


 * The question is how do you treat an act of war of which the enemy was warned? Also remember Wikipedia requires verifiable sources that can back up such claims. You can't just claim gencide and not have proof. Davidpdx (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is simple. Unless WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE sources characterise something as genocide, it doesn't get called that in a wikipedia article, and there should be no WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH nor WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Giving documented reasoning for the bombing is obviously relevant, as well as expert opinions from historians. Japanese behaviour towards others shouldn't be included unless the source specifically links it to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. Hohum (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lemkin, an originator of the term "genocide", defined it as as follows: it is "destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" "Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the opressed group; the other, imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."(Raphael Lemkin. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law. Publisher The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2008. ISBN 1584779012, 9781584779018 ). Since "genocide" is not only a scholarly, but also a judicial term, UNO defined it accordingly. Atomic bombing hardly fit this definition. Later, Lemkin, as well as some other scholars tried to expand this definition, however, according to Ellman, such "loosely defined genocide" became something not so outstanding and unusual (for, instance, a loose definition of genocide is applicable to many US actions). However, such an approach has been extensively criticised. Thus, Benjamen Valentino notes:
 * "For example, Leo Kuper, in his pioneering work on the comparative study of genocide, argued that the intentional killing of civilians such as the strategic bombings of WorldWar II should be considered genocide. Other scholars have abandoned the term genocide when examining the broader universe of intentional killing of civilians."(B. Valentino. “Draining the Sea”: Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare International Organization 58, Spring 2004, pp+ 375–407).
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want you can add all the japanese war crimes in this article, too, but the planned massmurder of more than 500.000 civilians is also genocide. Pearl Harbour was an attack on military personell, not on civilians. 9/11 was a terrorist attack. There was not a countrys government willing to kill young children, old men and women to force their enemy to surrender. I dont understand why so many americans still think it was a good thing to destroy these cities. Just imagine the Nazis would have done that with Los Angeles and New York!! They had all right to do so because you joint a war against them while they stayed neutral against the USA. I'm not pro Japanese, pro German, but only want to make you think about how bad it is to kill civilians - even if you are involved in the worst war ever in human history. --Vicente2782 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are expressing your opinion, not citing sources. Destroying Tokyo via firebombing cut that city's industrial output in half—a valid goal for strategic bombing. Binksternet (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a very emotional and controversial topic. However, because there is already an article called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which this article links to), perhaps it would be better to read that article, see if it is missing any important and citable point of view, and work to improve it.  I think this article should concentrate on the objective facts of the bombings as much as possible.  CosineKitty (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) CosineKitty is correct. Regardless of the rights or wrongs - this discussion should not be here. The correct place is on the talk page of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Please take the discussion there. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Little Boy, amount of Uranium
This article says that 60kg of uranium 235 was dropped on Hiroshima inside the bomb 'Little Boy' when it was only 600 milligrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.203.192 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The ~60 kg of Uranium is confirmed by many sources. Only about 600 milligrams fissioned. See, , , , . Hohum (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Atomic Bombs and Nuclear are Not synonyms
Japan was never 'nuked.'

Atomic weapons would be the proper term in every instance on this page.

A nuclear fission device or nuclear fission bomb, perhaps, but not a nuclear weapon. That term has always been a shorthand reference to Thermo- nuclear weapons, not 'A-bombs'.

24.233.34.138 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for this assertion? Hohum (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, atomic bombs are types of nuclear bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.113.203 (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hirohito regime
The article states: "After six months of intense strategic fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities the Hirohito regime ignored an ultimatum given by the Potsdam Declaration."

My suggestion is to change "the Hirohito regime" to "the Japanese government". My reasoning is that this is a more neutral description. "Regime" is a loaded term, and its use promotes the notion that Emperor Hirohito had full control over the decision making apparatus. I believe the evidence is that he was neither a dictator, nor an absolute monarch by any stretch of the imagination (although we don't say "the Hitler regime" or use the names of monarchs to describe their governments in any case). If the term "regime" must be used, it should more appropriately refer to the military regime that was in control of the levers of government at the time. The extent of Hirohito's war guilt is still being debated, of course, and this is not the place to discuss that issue. But the fact that this debate still rages makes it even more necessary to make the change to "the Japanese government". 219.106.159.117 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd concur that it is more neutral, Hirohito was a king not a dictator. Though I have to admit the words "Hitler and regime" do fly off the tongue nicely together, that's a discussion for another time. Davidpdx (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The original wording was the "Shōwa regime", in relation to the era and the kokutai. However, some user changed it for the personal name of the emperor ... Meanwhile, the latest works by Japanese and American authors show that the Shōwa emperor had effective control of the regime but in the way of a traditional military taishō, and was thus governing by consensus. --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording to "Japanese government". Oda Mari (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Implausible statement
The second paragraph states "Amongst these, 15–20% died from injuries or the combined effects of flash burns, trauma, and radiation burns, compounded by illness, malnutrition and radiation sickness."

This statement seems patently implausible, in its current context at least. What did the other 80-85% of victims die of,  if not from injuries, burns, trauma, radiation, illness, malnutrition or radiation sickness ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have rephrased this to reflect what is in the source cited at the end of the sentence. Hohum (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945,[4] with roughly half of those deaths occurring on the days of the bombings. Amongst these, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition.[5]"


 * Still not right.  How could they possibly know what the people who died on the day of the explosion, died from ?    I suspect these percentage estimates refer to the people who died in the 3 months following the day of the explosion,  not the day of the explosion itself.   I don't think either "radiation sickness" nor "malnutrition" can kill you in one day.Eregli bob (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The recent edits appear to have clarified this. However, the lead isn't the place for extended explanations, and should summarize what is in the main body of the article. Please move (and possible extend) the statistics into a relevant section in the main body, and leave a short summary in the lead. Hohum (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Formulations are softened. Protection against modification is established. It testifies to untidiness of article. It is article is not neutral. Why in article it is not told widely that nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it, is probable, also barbarous brutal experiment. The version from the USA, from the country which has made murder by barbarous way more than 200 thousand peace the person is widely presented only. The USA it is the interested party and researchers less should interest an estimation given from the USA. The chronology of events testifies that it there was a barbarous experiment and attempt to intimidate the USSR for reception of bonuses at the subsequent redistribution of the world. The chronology of events confirms it. Japan, having undergone to nuclear bombardments, even a month resisted and has signed capitulation only after loss of the last of land army in Manchuria (million Kwantung Army) from the Soviet army. Article is politized and is propaganda pro-American. The requirement - to open access for all registered users to this article. Otherwise it is pro-American propagation!!! 7prosecutor7 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. However, this article is hardly pro-American propaganda. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is semi-protected, which means that any registered user with a certain number of edits is allowed to contribute. There is no national boundary around who may edit the article.  We do run the risk of there being a de facto language bias, meaning that the English-speaking people of the world may tend to have a certain bias writing about a controversial topic like this.  For example, as a citizen of the USA, if I were to edit this article, I would have to try to be fair to all sides, regardless of my own emotions and beliefs.  There is also a risk that most English-language references cited may have a bias of some kind.  Now, to your specific assertions that these atomic bombings were "brutal experiments".  First of all, "brutal" is a passionate, emotional word.  I won't dispute the brutality of this event, but that's not the tone that Wikipedia strives for.  And about it being an "experiment", the articles about Little Boy and Fat Man already discuss the scientific and military data gleaned from the bombings themselves, and have reliable sources to back them up.  I think it is safe to argue that there were secondary goals in the bombings to understand how the weapons performed for future military and physics understanding, but it would be very hard to find objective evidence other than their primary purpose was to force Japan to surrender and save American soldiers' lives, and yes, to do so at the expense of Japanese civilian death and suffering.  If I take off my Wikipedia hat and put on my normal person hat, I can certainly understand someone calling that "brutal".  CosineKitty (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow to ask, respected CosineKitty: how it is possible to name differently murder of 250 000 women, children, old men in the course of a to days which has made the American government? You believe, what the word "brutal" doesn't approach? Well, offer other formulation. Probably, the formulation "cynical senseless" murder is more correct. And... Bombardments had no military sense. Japan capitulated only after month after bombardments, but it is literally next day after the ambassador of loss of last large forces out of Japan. Hence, these cynical bombardments haven't saved life of any soldiers. In general, it is necessary to investigate these bombardments and as biggest act of terror in the history of mankind. The USA already had record - the most mass genocide in the history of mankind (destruction of indigenous population of America). Probably, bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be recognised by new American record - by biggest act of terror in the history of mankind.7prosecutor7 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The bombings were not a brutal experiment, they were acts of war. The U.S. was not spending billions of dollars to make the bombs just for an experiment. The killing of Japanese people was intended to bring the war to a finish more quickly, and indeed it contributed to this result. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The groundless statement. Bombardment was experiment. The choice of the purposes and the subsequent gathering of materials testifies to it for researches. It is in historical documents. Bombardment hasn't accelerated and, especially, hasn't finished war. Study chronology and try read more...7prosecutor7 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making a mistake. The careful observation and measurements made in the air and on the ground by Americans are not proof that the bombs were experiments. A great many aspects of war and weaponry were observed and measured by the combatants, so that they could make intelligent decisions about future deployment of the weapon system. One example is this: Americans analyzed the results of the B-29s dropping naval mines by parachute into the waters around Japan. This analysis was done very carefully and thoroughly by Naval Ordnance Laboratory scientist Commander Ellis A. Johnson, a researcher with a doctoral degree. You do not call the naval mine-laying program a brutal experiment, even though it killed seamen and starved millions of Japanese civilians. Careful observation and measurement do not transform an act of war into an experiment. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Observation and measurements" are indirect signs of experimental character of bombardments. How to explain choice of city for bombardment carrying out? Not space in considerable distance from city. City. That, as many other researches were spent with other types of arms to what doesn't testify. Civilians who were material for the subsequent research have undergone to bombardments basically. How differently to name it? Only experiment. How to name experiment to which inhabitants of huge city have undergone? Only barbarous cynical experiment.7prosecutor7 (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there was no need to test experimentally what the reaction of enemy government would be if an empty countryside was bombed? --ja_62 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The experiment purpose, possibly, was not government reaction. The problem was to receive result of application against mass congestion of human material. For Americans inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were material for experiment. After bombardment results carefully collected and analyzed.7prosecutor7 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say it was an experiment, did I? Can you produce any proof for your statements, that it possibly was an experiment?--ja_62 (t 17:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have entered polemic. My arguments are written in messages above. Your arguments I don't see. About what dispute?7prosecutor7 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well - you are claiming that bombing was an experiment. You hadn't submitted any proofs for your claims yet. How I'd have to proove that your claims, based upon carefull selection and (des)interpretation of facts are completely baseless? Most of your claims were refuted earlier when your attention was drawn to the fact that careful observation and measurements of the effects were not proof of an experiment being made - I only humbly pointed to the fact that absolute ineffectivity of countryside bombings as a means of defeating enemy were perhaps well known. I can also point out to the fact, that the intended goal of the Americans was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration; by no means a cynical experiment. --ja_62 (t 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On May, 5th, 1945 the telegramme from Tokyo to Germany has been deciphered. There it was clearly visible to finish aspiration of Japan war. What for bombardment if it was clear was necessary, what Japan capitulates? It was necessary to destroy external Japanese forces. The USSR has made it. The American aircraft commanded the air over Japan. Henry Stimson talked to president Truman:" Ah, our Air Forces so will destroy by bombing Japan that it will be impossible to show power of the new weapon ". Four cities specially weren't exposed to bombardments before nuclear bombardment. These cities protected for the subsequent nuclear bombardment for cleanliness of experiment. Sequence: purpose choice - densely populated cities. Application of new type of the weapon. Gathering of materials. I.e.: object Choice, experiment carrying out, gathering of materials, the analysis. Undoubtedly, it was experiment. Ok. Now counter question - you can prove, what is it there was not experiment? It is my second question. But I, by the way, didn't see the answer to the first my question.7prosecutor7 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you to submit any proof of your claims, not another round of your statements. Can you answer my question first, please? Then we can proceed to answering your second question, and perhaps even your first question, if you'd like to specify what your first question was. BTW: On July 28 prime minister Suzuki rejected the Potsdam declaration - certainly a bit more official statement than some unspecified 'May telegram from Tokyo to Berlin showing finish aspiration of Japan war'.--ja_62 (t 10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bombardment - there was cynical experiment - such is my statement. I have furnished sequence as the proof: the American aircraft saved 4 cities for nuclear bombardment (bombardments of these cities practically weren't carried out), then nuclear bombardment has been spent, then materials for the further researches have been collected, then researches have been carried out. Definition of subject of experiment, object choice, observance of cleanliness of experiment, experiment carrying out, gathering of materials, research of results. Already it is enough of it for statements about experimental character of bombardments. The telegramme from Tokyo to Berlin confirmed aspiration of Japan to finish war. The USA had this information. Negotiations from the USSR have been finished also the introduction of the USSR into war on 9th of August has been defined. But bombardment nevertheless has been made. Conclusion only one. Bombardment was experiment and more intended for demonstration of military power of the USA for the USSR. You, having entered polemic with me, but you do not try to result counterarguments. I should repeat what I already wrote twice in the third time? Read my answer above. Problem that you ignore it. And I don't see refutation of my statement. Amusing tactics - to demand proofs, but most to avoid to confirm own point of view :)7prosecutor7 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 7prosecutor7. Wikipedia includes what is written in WP:RELIABLE secondary sources, not your opinion. Your conclusions about the meaning of the sequence of events isn't usable. This article talk page is not a forum for the general argument about the events, it is for deciding on how to improve the article by including information from reliable sources, without adding our own personal conclusions. So, unless you provide some reliable sources that draw the same conclusions, you are wasting your time. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * to: 7prosecutor7: It's quite difficult to refute your proofs, if you hadn't submitted any. The United States politicians had perhaps known about some unofficial Japanese willingness to end war, but they had known for certain that Japan had officially refused their terms. The United States Army Air Force gathered data of the effects of bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the rest is your construction unsupported by a reliable source. In the target selection their previous low level of damage (and even the international psychological impact of bombings) was of some importance, but this does not change a legitimate use of force in order to defeat the enemy into some 'cynical experiment'. In other words - why to demonstrate the force by bombing of already damaged, perhaps severely damaged, target? I don't have to disprove your unsupported and unsourced claims. --ja_62 (t 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Japan, having undergone to nuclear bombardments, even a month resisted" The Japanese government decided to surrender on 10 August — less than a day after the Nagasaki bombing (and the beginning of the Soviet invasion). Negotiations with the Allies took till 15 August, and the formalities took a couple of weeks to arrange. See Surrender of Japan for details.
 * —WWoods (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know many statements of politicians which weren't accompanied subsequently by affairs. Japan has signed capitulation only month later after bombardments, but it is literally next day after loss of the last of large external army in Manchuria. Literally next day capitulation has been signed. It is strange to hear about gravity of research which first of all leans against statements, and only in last turn leans against concrete events. And more one argument. The Japanese researchers which owns primary sources of internal Japanese documents of those years, declares today senselessness of bombardment.7prosecutor7 (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "See Surrender of Japan for details" Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. With regards to the Surrender of Japan article, the ref 72 consider Soviet invasion as a decisive factor. Pape (Why Japan Surrendered Author(s): Robert A. Pape Source: International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201) considers three factors that possibly forced Japan to surrender: naval blockade, fall of Okinawa and invasion of Manchuria. He concludes that, since JIA had a very significant political weight in Japan, vulnerability towards atomic bombing was not convincing argument for surrender. Only vulnerability to invasion demonstrated by rapid collapse of Kwantung Army, Japanese primary fighting force, served as a decisive argument. In addition, physical destruction of Kwantung Army, whose leadership was the most vehement opponent of capitulation, changed political balance in Japanese leadership.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that the decision to surrender was made immediately after the bombings — not a month later, as '7prosecutor7' seems to think. This is amply documented, whatever the relative weights of the bombings and the Soviet invasion may have been.
 * —WWoods (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The desire to stop war has appeared long before bombardments. Read above that writes Paul Siebert. The civil management secretly aspired to finish war. The military management (for which civil losses had no value) aspired to battle before loss of last forces. In wartime the military management, naturally, had the big power. Capitulation has been signed only after loss of last large army in Manchuria, i.e. last hope is lost. Date of signing of capitulation testifies to absolute senselessness of bombardments from the military point of view. Even if to consider these bombardments as attempt to stop thus war then it is these bombardments biggest act of terror in the history of mankind. If to consider bombardments as act of revenge here again it is awful barbarous act, since those women, newborn, old men, these civilians didn't make those actions for which would be possible to revenge. I will give an example: the criminal from your city makes murder of any person. Relatives of this person will destroy all city in which there lives the criminal. Is it normal? From any point of view it is mad, barbarous act.7prosecutor7 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kwantung Army was by no means 'lost' nor by August 10, when first offer of surrender was sent to Allies, neither by August 15 when the capitulation was officially announced. Certainly the Kwantung Army was endangered by the Soviets - but I think that attempts to establish any link between the decision of Japanese government to capitulate in early August and situation of Kwantung Army in time when the instrument of surrender was signed are incorrect, and quite hopeless from the timeline point of view. --ja_62 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kwantung Army under the influence of Red army has stopped to resist in the end of August - in the beginning of September, 1945. Capitulation has been signed on September, 2nd, 1945. The civil management of Japan aspired to finish war long before bombardments. But the military management had more powers and had the actual power. Japan has stopped resistance not after bombardments. Only after loss of last are reliable - the Kwantung Army in Manchuria Japan has stopped resistance and has officially signed capitulation. Therefore nuclear bombardments of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were senseless. On August, 15th the statement has been made. But I know many statements of politicians which didn't confirm with business subsequently these statements. The actual termination of resistance and official signing of capitulation has occurred on September, 2nd, 1945. The USA are the party which is most interested in softening of formulations concerning bombardments of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since In cases of recognition of these bombardments as war crime, the international responsibility is huge. Therefore the USA makes huge efforts for accentuation of attention of the public on date on August, 15th, 1945. But till August, 15th, 1945 there was one more considerable event - the introduction of the USSR into war on August, 9th 194 years. For Japan it meant only unconditional crash. Many significant Japanese historians, public figures declared senselessness and criminality of bombardments. Read it. And my question to supporters of bombardments: when Americans managed to land occupational armies in Japan?7prosecutor7 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Status of Kwantung Army:
 * "... in August 1945, the Kwantung Army's strength was still at around 600,000 men, ... However, the men remaining were largely semi-trained conscripts or raw recruits, ..."
 * "The final commander in chief of the Kwantung Army, General Otozo Yamada, ordered a surrender on August 16, 1945, one day after Emperor Hirohito announced the defeat of the Japanese empire in a radio announcement. Some Japanese divisions refused to surrender, and combat continued for the next few days."
 * Beginning of occupation:
 * "Japanese officials left for Manila on August 19 to meet Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers Douglas MacArthur, and to be briefed on his plans for the occupation. On August 28, 150 U.S. personnel flew to Atsugi, Kanagawa Prefecture, and the occupation of Japan began. They were followed by USS Missouri, whose accompanying vessels landed the 4th Marines on the southern coast of Kanagawa. Other Allied personnel followed."
 * "MacArthur arrived in Tokyo on August 30, and immediately decreed several laws: ..."
 * You could look this stuff up yourself, you know. —WWoods (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say this, you are clearly contradicting your own position. Decision to offer capitulation to the Allies was reached in early hours of August 10 (although some attempts to revert the decision were made), and after some negatiations with the Allies, the Allied terms were accepted on August 14 - on August 15 it was officially broadcasted to the population of Japan.
 * BTW, The Kwantung Army was deployed overseas, and due to Allied blockade of the sea, transfer of its units to Japan proper was impossible - what its direct influence of defence of Japanese Home Islands could had been? --ja_62 (t 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see any contradictions. And this desire was not on August, 10th. The civil management wished to stop war long before bombardments. The USSR has entered war against Japan on August, 9th 1945. But, I repeat, the wise researcher excites first of all not statements. Actual actions are much more important. Actual actions were that - Japan resisted up to the end of August, 1945. If statements had real force - all resistance would be stopped immediately after that statements. But Japan continued to resist. Insignificance this statement proceeded till the end of August when Japan has lost last argument - The Kwantung Army in Manchuria. Then it was necessary to sign capitulation only. Presence of operating external army was considerable for the Japanese military leaders. Read memoirs. This army also didn't intend for protection. If the USSR hasn't entered war then great strengths of the USA would be involved in struggle against the Kwantung army. But Japan has been broken by that the USSR has entered war. Bombardments weren't necessary. Now you contradict to yourself. And where the answer to my question. Why the USA haven't landed occupational army to Japan right after bombardments (for example, on August, 16th)? :) I repeat, Japan resisted up to the end of August 1945. Bombardments were senseless.7prosecutor7 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still wrong. The Allies shifted gears from invasion preparation to occupation as soon as Japan offered to surrender. The first occupation troops left Guam on 15 August. From The United States Marines in the Occupation of Japan:
 * "Loading began at 1600, 14 August and continued throughout the night. The troops boarded ship between 1000 and 1200 the following day, and that evening, the transport division sailed for its rendezvous at sea with the Third Fleet."
 * "On 20 August, the ships carrying the 4th RCT arrived and joined the burgeoning task force [off Japan]."
 * "On 21 August, General Eichelberger, ..., directed that the landing be made at the [Yokosuka] naval base ... Admiral Halsey had recommended the adoption of the Zushi landing plan since it did not involve bringing shipping into restricted Tokyo Bay until assault troops had dealt with 'the possibility of Japanese treachery.' The weight of evidence, however, was rapidly swinging in support of the theory that the enemy was going to cooperate fully with the occupying forces and that some of the precautions originally thought necessary could now be held in abeyance." [emph added.]
 * "L-Day was originally scheduled for 25 August, but on 20 August, a threatening typhoon forced Admiral Halsey to postpone the landing date to the 28th. ... On 25 August, word was received from MacArthur that the typhoon danger would delay Army air operations for 48 hours, and L-Day was consequently set for 30 August, with the Third Fleet entry into Sagami Wan on the 28th."
 * "The Japanese emissaries reported on board the Missouri early on 27 August. They said a lack of suitable mine sweepers had prevented them from clearing Sagami Wan and Tokyo Bay, but the movement of Allied shipping to safe berths in Sagami Wan under the guidance of Japanese pilots was accomplished without incident."
 * "On 28 August the first American task force, consisting of combat ships of Task Force 31, entered Tokyo Bay and dropped anchor off Yokosuka at 1300. Vice Admiral Totsuka, Commandant of the First Naval District and the Yokosuka Naval Base, and his staff reported to Admiral Badger in the San Diego for further instructions regarding the surrender of his command."
 * —WWoods (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First off I disagree that it was an "experiment". The US tested the bombs before dropping them. You didn’t have to be a nuclear physicist to know what it would do to living things.  And i dont see it as barbarous, it was an act of war, although regrettable, it was necessary to save hundreds of thousands of more lives (if not millions).  The Japanese would have done the same thing in a heartbeat.  Killing civilians should never be a goal, but one must understand the mindset of the Japanese people at the time.  They believed that Americans were barbarians that would stop at nothing to slaughter all of them.  They would have fought for every inch and would have killed themselves before surrendering (there is video evidence of this fact).  Indeed many more civilians would have been killed if an all-out ground war were started.  And as far as being politicized, Wikipedia is fairly safe from that, if it’s that apparent, bring it up and maybe a higher level user will change it.

Metal9383 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but this discussion no longer pertains to improving THIS article. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of either point of view - this discussion should not be here. The correct place would be on the talk page of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because that is what is being debated in this section. Please take the discussion there. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)