This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
To "Cleared as filed": As you have twice removed my remark as to Europe. Don't worry I won't add it again, it's not that important. But it's not that I try to push my point of view, it's increasingly the view taken by most Europeans. It's not predominant (yet, at least), but lately I hear/read it more and more. When I say European, though, I have to admit I can only speak for German and French speaking countries and Italy. Anyways, here this view is strong. Now I cannot from the top of my head quote many sources, my field of study is sinology, yet this is close enough so that I come into contact with the main theories and opinions. I won't spend several hours researching this matter to consistently "prove" my point, so I won't add anything about it anymore. The one source I did quote I had on my hands by chance, and I added it because this is probably by the leading expert for 20th century East Asian history in Germany, and certainly no enemy of realpolitik (he's a student of Hans Morgenthau).
The accuracy dispute is about the statement in the article that warnings were not given about the bombing.
According to many sources including the US government, leaflets were dropped on the cities by aircraft warning that the city was targeted. They were known as LeMay leaflets. - user:ted-m
If you could reference some of the sources to which you refer, then the process of vetting them and making any changes deemed necessary can begin. -- Xaliqen 15:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Has anybody seen a version of the leaflet written in Japanese? -- Yannick 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page on the CIA website has a description and image of the LeMay leaflets, including a translation of their text. They were written in Japanese and millions of them were dropped over many cities before the second bombing occurred. Of course that's what the CIA says but I for one believe them. JustinWick 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
2 other leaflet pics : http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-087.htm http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-086.htm
Currently the article reads:
Not knowning if the Yanks had a production line set up to mass produce the weapon, why would the Japan's government think total destruction was preferable to occupation? As the surrender was close to an unconditional surrender how could they know if the Soviets would or would not occupy part or all of Japan just as they had done in all the other Axis countries apart from Italy? Philip Baird Shearer 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This page makes no note of the fact that Hirohito did make reference to the atomic bombings in his radio broadcast of surrender:
I think that it's a pretty relevant point to put in here, somewhere. If someone wants to figure out where it best fits, that would be great. -- Fastfission 16:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hiroshima was certainly not "a city of considerable (...) military significance". Neither has it been "a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military". ("Some military camps were located nearby" does not back up the claim at all.) The opposite is true. Let me cite German public broadcasting: "...she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base, nor an important port for the supply with military machinery, nor a central point of the military industry." ( http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/artikel/0508/11-hiroshimapilot/index.xml). Let me also cite Yale University: "Weller echoed Truman's claim that the US attacked military targets: "[N]o saboteur creeping among the war plants of death could have placed the atomic bomb by hand more scrupulously. ..." It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." ( http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5964). One just has to read Stephen Walker. Why is it that on the 60th anniversary (!) of the bombing The New York Times still states it was a city "with many military sites at the time"? Why can't America accept its share of atrocities, just point fingers out of moral superiority? And why do EVEN wikipedia-articles - which should represented the intellectual vanguard - include this lie? This permanent denial is such a shame! Does Wikipedia not aspire to adhere to standards of common sense and enlightenment? To me there seems to be no authentic change of mind from Truman's diary entries then to this article now. Jean Winkler 11:41, 21 September 2005 (CEST)
[At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire] Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. Both cities had munitions factories. In addition Hiroshima was the HQ of the Japanese second army, and a major point of supply and reorganization. Nagasaki was home to the largest naval docks in Japan (docks used primarily by the Japanese navy). Also, let's bear in mind that the Japanese mobilized (literally) 100% of their population to fight back the american invasion. "The entire popuilation of Japan is a military target ... THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN" (Emphasis not mine) - 5th Air Force intelligence report, July 21, 1945. 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
article cited at top from Yale states: "It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." Even if true, only by chance. The plane with the second bomb flew to Kokura, and only because of cloud cover flew to secondary target Nagasaki, and only by chance found a "break in the cloud cover". (ref somewhere, need to search). Also interesting to reread in this context is http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html Report of the target committee, May 12. It mentions a later meeting May 28. Does anyone have a reference to that later meeting? GangofOne 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This senetence's paranthetical end, found at the end of a paragraph in the 'Objections to the Bomb's Use' section, seems innacurate from what I know of the conflict that took place between military and civilian leaders in the last days of the war:
From my understanding a military coup was narrowly averted and was only due to a few individuals loyal to the emperor risking their lives to resist the military coup. I do not rember the names of the individuals, but I thought that the coup was only averted after a few auspicious outcomes to events that could have easily gone the other way. For example the empereror's surrender adress, which was recorded, had to be hidden in the audio engineer's house (whose house was searched by militarists who failed to find the record hidden amongsts a stack of old newspapers) and was sneaked to the radio station, which, on top of this, was stormed by miltarists opposed to surrender immediately before it was played, and was only allowed to be played after a influential general, going against his peers, telephoned the station and ordered the commander of the force that stormed the station to allow the surrender adress to be played. Milatarists actually held the emperor captive when searching for the recording in order to destroy it and prevent a new one being made. All in all it does not seem like it was "easily supressed." I do not have references, but since it is a minor edit I will delete the paranthetical statement. If anyone disagrees I will not dispute it due to my lack of references and the fact that this is not my area of expertise. But I think it might be a relatively uncontroversial edit. -- Brentt 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Who has argued this? In the long discussion we had about this issue Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3#War crimes. No one has yet produced an authoritative article which states that it was a war crime or a crime against humanity and several have been produced which state that it was not. So unless an authoritative source can be found to back this sentence up it should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It was no crime cause the dropper was the winner. If a Japanese squadron had dropped it on San Francisco, each of them would have been charged and executed. 16.12.2006 Slartibartfass from Germany
About the tag removed today suggesting moving the "Leaflet" text to Wikisource. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think the Japanese text should be moved over to Wikisource, and we should keep the English translation here. I don't see any value in keeping the Japanese text here when most users won't be able to read it. Any comments? — Cleared as filed. 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Copy the whole thing to wikisource and delete the nonenglish part here? GOOD IDEA. Be bold! Just do it! WAS 4.250 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Fastission for not deleting critical data. The data is critical because of the perceptions, misinformation, emotions, and judgements about why the bombs were dropped at all, why they were dropped where they were dropped, and what the US did or did not do to mitigate loss of innocent life. People can read the content for themselves and use it in helping to make up their own minds. We don't spoonfeed conclusions. Using general rules like don't include entire sources to undermine the INTENT of the world's most complete encyclopedia is called gaming the system. The rules exist to help in creating a better encyclopedia - not to be ends in themselves. And the inclusion of this single paragraph in its entirety (its ONLY A PARAGRAPH!) is important in the reader's ability to make up their own mind about those very important questions. Some people seem to think all quoting is somehow necessarily bad. Ain't so. WAS 4.250 02:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the article says that two different buildings were the closest buildings to have survived the blast.
Citizens of Hiroshima walk by the A-Bomb Dome, the closest building to have survived the city's atomic bombing.
Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, the closest building to have withstood the bomb blast.
They can't both be. Which is it? -- Mr. Billion 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have a bit more on the justification for the use of the Atomic Bomb? How about a bit more develpment on the push to have the bomb finished and used before the August 8 Soviet entry date?
The picture of Urakami Tenshudo church showing the bell of the church having toppled off is a bit suspicious. If you look at [3] the octagonal structure looks just like one of the domes on top of the towers! Pt1234 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot make out the scale on the map of Hiroshima; does anyone know the radius of the blast from the bombs? If so, thanks!
I need to explain to you why I did the thing. 1. the image i switched it the mushroom cloud and put the broken house down there 2. the nuclear attack caused great damage not considering what might've happened if the allies attacked japan. I'm not talking about the consequences of the allies attack on japan, just the nuclear attack and what it did. stop confusing the too. 3. I don't understand why and what you don't understand from the nuclear radiation issue, most all of the deaths 99% were caused by nuclear radiation, in other words, nuclear genes and stuff coming into the human genes and altering them forever and that's why many died (the severe) ones for the oncoming years and it was gradually decreased and disappeard i suppose. Also look at Chernobyl if you are not really familiar with nuclear atomic bomb and radiation. Atomic bomb doesn't really kill that much without radiation!. Explain your position coherently and then we can talk. Thanks 67.190.113.165 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Q.What were the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki?
A.
Q.What would have happenedif the bombs had not been dropped?
A.
Q.what would be some good things to say in a debate if you were on the con side?
[unasked questions deleted] —wwoods 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole page lacks NPOV and it lacks sources for its claims. For example, it says Hiroshima was not a military target...rediculous. This is horribly anti-American and needs to be revised for NPOV.
Reply: There are reasons to be a anti-American, reasons why I am a anti-American. One very good reason, is the use of the atomic bomb on two Japanese towns. Are some military person, some military buildings, sufficient to wipe out a whole town ? We can see those "surgical" attacks even to day ! We know now, that children, women, farmers, are military targets, we have seen that in Vietnam. We know, that it not started with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that the testing of new weapons not ended there.
Conclusion: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets for a fascistic attack, not better than the other side.
The attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible. IF a city in a fascistic, aggressive state, is a military target, why then the indignant over World Trade Center ? This attack was to 50 % directed against a military target, Pentagon.
You are free to be as anti-american as you want, but an encyclopedia should deal only in facts, not opinions!!! There may have been tens of thousands of lives saved by those bombs. The Japanese were relentless in fighting to the death no matter the futility, and they quite possibly would have seen more deaths with a land invasion than with the bombs. Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng fro the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor. Civilians died, but they were not the target, which is what separates war crimes from collateral damage.
What incohereant bull are bloviating about with the USSR comment. What does "attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible." even mean. That does not even make any sense???????
Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war. 24.11.154.78 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I understand that, but to say these things is pure speculation. How does s/he or anyone else know if Japan would have surrendered. With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare. Tis is the concept of "total war". Encyclopedias deal in facts. He is free to speculate all he wants, but the article should not include such speculation because, until a time machine is developed, we can never know what would have happened. 24.11.154.78 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
I cant find a single argument for that Hiroshima and Nagasaki whas military targets.
The percentage of victims, clearly shows the character of the attack; it was a terror-attack.
"Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng from the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor."
Thats not the bottom line; the strugle for control of the Pacific, and the world, is more close to the bottom line.
"With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare."
This is pure speculation. The atomic death last for thousands of years, perhaps for eternity. I cant see ANYTHING positive with the atomic bomb, and the possibility to kill more humans than ever before.
"From a purely emotional standpoint, the desire for revenge is understandable in a wartime situation. But from the standpoint of finding the least deadly way to bring the enemy's surrender and save the lives of one's own military personnel, emotionalism may divert leaders from considering diplomatic solutions by making military/punitive measures seem more attractive and necessary. This may have contributed to Truman's belief that Japan would not surrender without a large-scale invasion of her mainland and/or atomic bombings." (from http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm By Doug Long)
"Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war."
Was the instantaneous death of 130.000 civilians in Hiroshima not deliberate ? Are Pentagon not a military target ? Are citys military targets ? Were are YOUR mind ? The attack was directed AGAINST a country at war, a terror-state. Partisans are allowed to fight, even if their State not exist any more. HOW many people can say to you: "They could have avoided all the death by NOT attacking" ?
Could you guys/girls please sign your postings? That way you don't need to start with 'reply' and people will know who is replying (and to whom).
DirkvdM 08:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The 1993 WTC bombers did their act in retaliation of Hiroshima A-bombing, as they clearly stated in court video. They intended to topple one tower, so it brings down the other and kills summa 50k americans to achieve eye-for-eye. Eventually UBL and his 19 warriors realized some of the aim in 2001. But there are 47k further yankees to go plus Nagasaki is not yet avenged. But arabs will not rest to repay the great support japanese revolutionaries provided to the palestinian cause during the 1970s! The a-bombs come back to haunt America! Just like a samurai commits seppuku in case of a grave mistake, America will have its guts ripped as a punishment.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
To "Cleared as filed": As you have twice removed my remark as to Europe. Don't worry I won't add it again, it's not that important. But it's not that I try to push my point of view, it's increasingly the view taken by most Europeans. It's not predominant (yet, at least), but lately I hear/read it more and more. When I say European, though, I have to admit I can only speak for German and French speaking countries and Italy. Anyways, here this view is strong. Now I cannot from the top of my head quote many sources, my field of study is sinology, yet this is close enough so that I come into contact with the main theories and opinions. I won't spend several hours researching this matter to consistently "prove" my point, so I won't add anything about it anymore. The one source I did quote I had on my hands by chance, and I added it because this is probably by the leading expert for 20th century East Asian history in Germany, and certainly no enemy of realpolitik (he's a student of Hans Morgenthau).
The accuracy dispute is about the statement in the article that warnings were not given about the bombing.
According to many sources including the US government, leaflets were dropped on the cities by aircraft warning that the city was targeted. They were known as LeMay leaflets. - user:ted-m
If you could reference some of the sources to which you refer, then the process of vetting them and making any changes deemed necessary can begin. -- Xaliqen 15:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Has anybody seen a version of the leaflet written in Japanese? -- Yannick 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page on the CIA website has a description and image of the LeMay leaflets, including a translation of their text. They were written in Japanese and millions of them were dropped over many cities before the second bombing occurred. Of course that's what the CIA says but I for one believe them. JustinWick 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
2 other leaflet pics : http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-087.htm http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-086.htm
Currently the article reads:
Not knowning if the Yanks had a production line set up to mass produce the weapon, why would the Japan's government think total destruction was preferable to occupation? As the surrender was close to an unconditional surrender how could they know if the Soviets would or would not occupy part or all of Japan just as they had done in all the other Axis countries apart from Italy? Philip Baird Shearer 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This page makes no note of the fact that Hirohito did make reference to the atomic bombings in his radio broadcast of surrender:
I think that it's a pretty relevant point to put in here, somewhere. If someone wants to figure out where it best fits, that would be great. -- Fastfission 16:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hiroshima was certainly not "a city of considerable (...) military significance". Neither has it been "a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military". ("Some military camps were located nearby" does not back up the claim at all.) The opposite is true. Let me cite German public broadcasting: "...she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base, nor an important port for the supply with military machinery, nor a central point of the military industry." ( http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/artikel/0508/11-hiroshimapilot/index.xml). Let me also cite Yale University: "Weller echoed Truman's claim that the US attacked military targets: "[N]o saboteur creeping among the war plants of death could have placed the atomic bomb by hand more scrupulously. ..." It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." ( http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5964). One just has to read Stephen Walker. Why is it that on the 60th anniversary (!) of the bombing The New York Times still states it was a city "with many military sites at the time"? Why can't America accept its share of atrocities, just point fingers out of moral superiority? And why do EVEN wikipedia-articles - which should represented the intellectual vanguard - include this lie? This permanent denial is such a shame! Does Wikipedia not aspire to adhere to standards of common sense and enlightenment? To me there seems to be no authentic change of mind from Truman's diary entries then to this article now. Jean Winkler 11:41, 21 September 2005 (CEST)
[At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire] Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. Both cities had munitions factories. In addition Hiroshima was the HQ of the Japanese second army, and a major point of supply and reorganization. Nagasaki was home to the largest naval docks in Japan (docks used primarily by the Japanese navy). Also, let's bear in mind that the Japanese mobilized (literally) 100% of their population to fight back the american invasion. "The entire popuilation of Japan is a military target ... THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN" (Emphasis not mine) - 5th Air Force intelligence report, July 21, 1945. 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
article cited at top from Yale states: "It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." Even if true, only by chance. The plane with the second bomb flew to Kokura, and only because of cloud cover flew to secondary target Nagasaki, and only by chance found a "break in the cloud cover". (ref somewhere, need to search). Also interesting to reread in this context is http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html Report of the target committee, May 12. It mentions a later meeting May 28. Does anyone have a reference to that later meeting? GangofOne 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This senetence's paranthetical end, found at the end of a paragraph in the 'Objections to the Bomb's Use' section, seems innacurate from what I know of the conflict that took place between military and civilian leaders in the last days of the war:
From my understanding a military coup was narrowly averted and was only due to a few individuals loyal to the emperor risking their lives to resist the military coup. I do not rember the names of the individuals, but I thought that the coup was only averted after a few auspicious outcomes to events that could have easily gone the other way. For example the empereror's surrender adress, which was recorded, had to be hidden in the audio engineer's house (whose house was searched by militarists who failed to find the record hidden amongsts a stack of old newspapers) and was sneaked to the radio station, which, on top of this, was stormed by miltarists opposed to surrender immediately before it was played, and was only allowed to be played after a influential general, going against his peers, telephoned the station and ordered the commander of the force that stormed the station to allow the surrender adress to be played. Milatarists actually held the emperor captive when searching for the recording in order to destroy it and prevent a new one being made. All in all it does not seem like it was "easily supressed." I do not have references, but since it is a minor edit I will delete the paranthetical statement. If anyone disagrees I will not dispute it due to my lack of references and the fact that this is not my area of expertise. But I think it might be a relatively uncontroversial edit. -- Brentt 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Who has argued this? In the long discussion we had about this issue Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3#War crimes. No one has yet produced an authoritative article which states that it was a war crime or a crime against humanity and several have been produced which state that it was not. So unless an authoritative source can be found to back this sentence up it should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It was no crime cause the dropper was the winner. If a Japanese squadron had dropped it on San Francisco, each of them would have been charged and executed. 16.12.2006 Slartibartfass from Germany
About the tag removed today suggesting moving the "Leaflet" text to Wikisource. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think the Japanese text should be moved over to Wikisource, and we should keep the English translation here. I don't see any value in keeping the Japanese text here when most users won't be able to read it. Any comments? — Cleared as filed. 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Copy the whole thing to wikisource and delete the nonenglish part here? GOOD IDEA. Be bold! Just do it! WAS 4.250 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Fastission for not deleting critical data. The data is critical because of the perceptions, misinformation, emotions, and judgements about why the bombs were dropped at all, why they were dropped where they were dropped, and what the US did or did not do to mitigate loss of innocent life. People can read the content for themselves and use it in helping to make up their own minds. We don't spoonfeed conclusions. Using general rules like don't include entire sources to undermine the INTENT of the world's most complete encyclopedia is called gaming the system. The rules exist to help in creating a better encyclopedia - not to be ends in themselves. And the inclusion of this single paragraph in its entirety (its ONLY A PARAGRAPH!) is important in the reader's ability to make up their own mind about those very important questions. Some people seem to think all quoting is somehow necessarily bad. Ain't so. WAS 4.250 02:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the article says that two different buildings were the closest buildings to have survived the blast.
Citizens of Hiroshima walk by the A-Bomb Dome, the closest building to have survived the city's atomic bombing.
Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, the closest building to have withstood the bomb blast.
They can't both be. Which is it? -- Mr. Billion 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have a bit more on the justification for the use of the Atomic Bomb? How about a bit more develpment on the push to have the bomb finished and used before the August 8 Soviet entry date?
The picture of Urakami Tenshudo church showing the bell of the church having toppled off is a bit suspicious. If you look at [3] the octagonal structure looks just like one of the domes on top of the towers! Pt1234 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot make out the scale on the map of Hiroshima; does anyone know the radius of the blast from the bombs? If so, thanks!
I need to explain to you why I did the thing. 1. the image i switched it the mushroom cloud and put the broken house down there 2. the nuclear attack caused great damage not considering what might've happened if the allies attacked japan. I'm not talking about the consequences of the allies attack on japan, just the nuclear attack and what it did. stop confusing the too. 3. I don't understand why and what you don't understand from the nuclear radiation issue, most all of the deaths 99% were caused by nuclear radiation, in other words, nuclear genes and stuff coming into the human genes and altering them forever and that's why many died (the severe) ones for the oncoming years and it was gradually decreased and disappeard i suppose. Also look at Chernobyl if you are not really familiar with nuclear atomic bomb and radiation. Atomic bomb doesn't really kill that much without radiation!. Explain your position coherently and then we can talk. Thanks 67.190.113.165 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Q.What were the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki?
A.
Q.What would have happenedif the bombs had not been dropped?
A.
Q.what would be some good things to say in a debate if you were on the con side?
[unasked questions deleted] —wwoods 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole page lacks NPOV and it lacks sources for its claims. For example, it says Hiroshima was not a military target...rediculous. This is horribly anti-American and needs to be revised for NPOV.
Reply: There are reasons to be a anti-American, reasons why I am a anti-American. One very good reason, is the use of the atomic bomb on two Japanese towns. Are some military person, some military buildings, sufficient to wipe out a whole town ? We can see those "surgical" attacks even to day ! We know now, that children, women, farmers, are military targets, we have seen that in Vietnam. We know, that it not started with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that the testing of new weapons not ended there.
Conclusion: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets for a fascistic attack, not better than the other side.
The attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible. IF a city in a fascistic, aggressive state, is a military target, why then the indignant over World Trade Center ? This attack was to 50 % directed against a military target, Pentagon.
You are free to be as anti-american as you want, but an encyclopedia should deal only in facts, not opinions!!! There may have been tens of thousands of lives saved by those bombs. The Japanese were relentless in fighting to the death no matter the futility, and they quite possibly would have seen more deaths with a land invasion than with the bombs. Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng fro the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor. Civilians died, but they were not the target, which is what separates war crimes from collateral damage.
What incohereant bull are bloviating about with the USSR comment. What does "attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible." even mean. That does not even make any sense???????
Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war. 24.11.154.78 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I understand that, but to say these things is pure speculation. How does s/he or anyone else know if Japan would have surrendered. With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare. Tis is the concept of "total war". Encyclopedias deal in facts. He is free to speculate all he wants, but the article should not include such speculation because, until a time machine is developed, we can never know what would have happened. 24.11.154.78 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
I cant find a single argument for that Hiroshima and Nagasaki whas military targets.
The percentage of victims, clearly shows the character of the attack; it was a terror-attack.
"Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng from the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor."
Thats not the bottom line; the strugle for control of the Pacific, and the world, is more close to the bottom line.
"With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare."
This is pure speculation. The atomic death last for thousands of years, perhaps for eternity. I cant see ANYTHING positive with the atomic bomb, and the possibility to kill more humans than ever before.
"From a purely emotional standpoint, the desire for revenge is understandable in a wartime situation. But from the standpoint of finding the least deadly way to bring the enemy's surrender and save the lives of one's own military personnel, emotionalism may divert leaders from considering diplomatic solutions by making military/punitive measures seem more attractive and necessary. This may have contributed to Truman's belief that Japan would not surrender without a large-scale invasion of her mainland and/or atomic bombings." (from http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm By Doug Long)
"Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war."
Was the instantaneous death of 130.000 civilians in Hiroshima not deliberate ? Are Pentagon not a military target ? Are citys military targets ? Were are YOUR mind ? The attack was directed AGAINST a country at war, a terror-state. Partisans are allowed to fight, even if their State not exist any more. HOW many people can say to you: "They could have avoided all the death by NOT attacking" ?
Could you guys/girls please sign your postings? That way you don't need to start with 'reply' and people will know who is replying (and to whom).
DirkvdM 08:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The 1993 WTC bombers did their act in retaliation of Hiroshima A-bombing, as they clearly stated in court video. They intended to topple one tower, so it brings down the other and kills summa 50k americans to achieve eye-for-eye. Eventually UBL and his 19 warriors realized some of the aim in 2001. But there are 47k further yankees to go plus Nagasaki is not yet avenged. But arabs will not rest to repay the great support japanese revolutionaries provided to the palestinian cause during the 1970s! The a-bombs come back to haunt America! Just like a samurai commits seppuku in case of a grave mistake, America will have its guts ripped as a punishment.