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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I have removed the unsourced speculation that that use of the bombs could have been tried as a crime against humanity. See archive Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 5#Crime against humanity and a war crime for more on this topic. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Bombing cities (i.e. civilian targets) was of course not a war crime in the period 1936-1945. Otherwise all the world's gallows would have broken under the strain. There were quite literally tens of thousands of aviators who spent the best years of their lives doing just that, from Guernica in 1936 to Kokura in 1945. -- Cubdriver 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Non-exhaustive list. Please add to it, including off-line references.
Tazmaniacs 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. So, to answer Shearer's previous questions concerning the deleted (a long time ago) statement "It has been argued that the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings constituted war crimes & crimes against humanity" (Shearer asked: "Who has argued that? Without sources this should be removed"), well, I hope I've shown enough here (and I haven't listed many websites which would have been accused of being either environmentalists or left-wing, but there is a large part of these people who do argue so): Hannah Arendt for one has argued so, as well as the mayor of Hiroshima, and even John Bolton justify the US refusal to enter the ICC by stating that if it had been previously in force, than the US would have been judged for Hiroshima! Tazmaniacs 12:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten this section, although mostly I just rearranged the existing content for (IMO) better organization and clarity. There is some increased emphasis on the terms "war crime" and "crime against humanity", as those terms have often been used by opponents of the bombings. I included a small amount of new material, taking advantage of Tazmaniacs's research above. KarlBunker 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced paragraph:
Because the ICJ made clear in paragraph 55 and 56 of their 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons that "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate. This practice is clear, and the parties to those instruments [(Hague IV and Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925)] have not treated them as referring to nuclear weapons. In view of this, it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol (see paragraph 54 above)." -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The bombings of Axis cities were most certainly NOT controversial in the U.S. That's ridiculous: who in the U.S. opposed them? I doubt they were controversial in Japan either! (Who in Japan was arguing in favor of them?) That's to misunderstand the times, which I concede is a very popular activity 60 years down the line. The perspective here pretends to be August 1945 but is actually that of March 2005. Further, the bombing of Axis cities cannot be understand without mention of the bombing of cities BY the Axis air forces. Wiki is ridiculous enough without this sort of one-eyed hindsight. The bombings were devastating, destructive, whatever adjective along that line you prefer, but they were not controversial; and they were two-sided. In Asia the die was cast eight years previously at Shanghai by the JNAF; in Europe, nine years earlier by the German Condor Legion. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as was said at the time. -- Cubdriver 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The point I tried to make was that city-busting was routine from 1936 to 1945. It has only become controversial (which implies widespread condemnation as we now understand the term) postwar when we were graced with the opportunity to sit down and survey the wreck of much of the world. To say *follow* is to imply a logical progression, and to say *controversial* is to imply that the plan was widely condemned, and to mention only *Allied* bombings is to imply that this was all a devilish invention of Churchill and Roosevelt. What the Hiroshima bombing *followed* was an eight-year history of destroying whole cities, and not just by aerial bombardment. A truly neutral discussion would cite Nanjing and Warsaw here (Wiki gives death tolls of perhaps 200,000 and 250,000 for these two events) as well as Guernica, Chongqing, Rotterdam, Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin (which was largely destroyed in May by block to block fighting). -- Cubdriver 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"This page is 149 kilobytes long." I'll make a new archive page of the discussions from early March, which are apparently no longer active. Does anyone want any of them kept on this page? Casualties? Radiation sickness? Soviet invasion? Obviously these subjects haven't been settled for good and all...
—wwoods 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Done.
—wwoods 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: a recent revert: The "intelligent" part of Kyoto in the original document (of the 2nd meeting of the Target Committee) seems to me rather clearly to list it as a reason for bombing it, not against it (it lists it as a psychological advantage, whereas on the other targets when it lists detriments it is very clear about them being reasons not to bomb them). The fact that the document itself still lists Kyoto as the top target seems to back that up, as well as the fact that Stimson himself later got Kyoto removed from the list. I also think that I better summed up the reasons for the selection of Hiroshima than the version you reverted to, if you look at the document itself. [2] But I'm happy to defer to the opinions of others and have no interest in a revert war. -- Fastfission 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Skywriter, mention of Hague Conventions probably needs some other source than the documents themselves, such as:
Boyle, Francis A. (2002). The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence. Clarity Press. p. 58.
Though there a probably some POV problems w/ this source (it's just the first one i found), especially when inserted into the "Choice of Targets" section. EricR 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I vigorously protest the move of "The United States selected Japanese cities as targets for nuclear bombing without regard to international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1907. [3]" to the subheading Opposition to use of atomic bombs without prior discussion.
This one sentence was established international law, not opposition stated soon before or after the bombings. I intend to return it to "Choice of Targets" because that is exactly where it belongs. Further, the treaty wording is plain English and does not require interpretation by secondary source.
Nor do the treaty wordings require the addition of the "everybody does it" defense. The dropping of nuclear bombs on civilian populations is unique in history. skywriter 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Karl, it is apparent you have an axe to grind, called sugar-coating. The dropping of weapons of nuclear weapons on civilian populations is unique in the history of warfare, and violated at least two Hague conventions in ways that had never been done before or and so far has never been done since.
As previously stated, the "everybody does it defense" is neither moral nor persusasive. Each combatant is responsible for its own actions without regard to war crimes of others. That precept follows directly from Nuremburg.
That the U.S. was not nailed for violating treaties it had signed and ratified was only because it was one of the two primary victors to emerge from WW II, and it is well-known victors are not punished, only losers. The difference here between our two positions is I trust readers to make up their own minds based on facts and you do not. You would obfuscate it or move it to an area where readers would not necessarily make that connection. You have moved it to an area where it is a pro and con issue, which is itself false. This was established international law. These 25 words --- "The United States selected Japanese cities as targets for nuclear bombing without regard to international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1907. [4]"--- are factual, and derive from the same source (dannen) and same page where the rest of that section comes, (except for the honeymoon business came) yet you want to pretend it is unrelated.
What is the evidence the four target cities were defended against atomic warfare? What is the evidence the U.S. warned the population what was about to occur?
In one of the histories of Nagasaki, it was stated there were bomb shelters in the hills that would have protected civilians, had they had prior warning. skywriter 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you know of a law or treaty (de jure) that I don't. Identify one example where the U.S. government has ratified an attack on civilian populations. After the fact, it is usually denied that it was intentional. In the case of the Japanese cities, it was an intentional attack on an urban i.e. civilian population. skywriter 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated several times already, destruction of cities was routine in this era. Perhaps the United States did it less overtly than the Japanese, Germans, and British, but no one could pretend after Dresden and Tokyo that the USAAF didn't target cities. It was the concept of strategic bombing that was the veneer. How can one possibly speak of a war crime that is standard practice? Destroying Hiroshima was no more a war crime than shooting a soldier in combat was homicide. One can argue that war itself is a crime, but that's an argument for another venue. -- Cubdriver 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as viewpoints are being aired on this matter, let me say the bombing of civilians is never routine and never morally justified. The examples Wwoods proffers are military justifications (and ceelbrations) for a tactical decision, not a defense in then existing international law of the strategic decision. That there was international law then on this topic is ignored in the article and on this talk page, and a continuing rush to defend the US 1945 position. 1,810,000 pages include the words: Hiroshima moral. That suggests the matter of the nuclear bombing of civilian populations is hardly settled.
The Allies were roundly condemned throughout the world for bombing Tokyo and Dresden. I am surprised you view that not as widely debated but widely agreed upon.
As to Wwoods argument that the US went after military targets, that also is not true for several reasons. The military activities were provably on the periphery of Hiroshima where the bomb did the least damage. The most damage was done to civilians at the center.
If the US were seriously interested in destroying the Japanese war machine, then Richard Frank provides the best rationale for doing so in his description of the buildup of Japanese troops on the island where their commanders correctly assumed they could expect a homeland invasion. The US had the choice of taking out the gathering Japanese armies or taking out its civilians, and chose the latter.
Drill presses prove nothing but the existence of industry, and are not justification for nuclear bombing. The article tilts in the direction of defending US justifications for what it did, and the edits are inflexible in the prohibition of facts on this matter in the target section.
Much documentation has been provided concerning radiation illness that persisted over the decades and there was much discussion here, yet nothing has been added to the article, which reads as if there were no longterm residual effects. skywriter 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that someone had the courage to delete this noxious section, and I'm sorry to see it reverted. Why don't we call the section "Trivia" and be honest about it? Maybe we can even come up with some sick jokes to round it out and give it the right tone. Cultural! (Dr Atomic is cultural, I suppose, but perhaps to include an opera would lift the level of discussion too high?) -- Cubdriver 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Added two citations for the opening section, but they are both fairly weak support. Maybe we would do better to just to list important viewpoints rather than an "American" and "Japanese" outlook? EricR 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Any idea where the 90% civilian figure comes from? It used to have a {{fact}} attatched when further down in the article. EricR 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For reference, ongoing discussion, and possible future additions I'm copying this table of various casualty estimates from Archive 7
Source | Hiroshima casualties | Nagasaki casualties | Total casualties |
---|---|---|---|
Encyclopedia Britannica Online | at least 70k dead | 60k-80k dead | 130k-150k dead |
RERF [5] | 90k-140k | 60k-80k | 150k-220k |
Richard Frank's Downfall (1999), p. 285–7 | |||
Imperial General HQ official history [added 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)] | 70k – 120k | ||
Manhattan Engineering District 1946 [6] | 66k dead, 135k total | 39k dead, 64k total | 105k dead, 199k total |
USSBS, March 1947 | 80k dead | 45k dead | 125k dead |
Japan Economic Stabilization Board, April 1949 | 78,150 dead | 23,753 dead | 101,903 dead |
OSW (Japan) and USNR , April 1966 | 70k dead | 36k dead | 106k dead |
Frank's summary: | 100k-200k dead | ||
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1979/1981), p. 113–4 | |||
Special Committee of the Science Council of Japan, 1951 | ~100k dead (in 1945) | ||
Joint Commission (Does not include military: 15-20k dead in H.?) |
58,580-68,670 dead (1945) | 29,398-37,507 dead (1946) | 87,978-106,177 dead |
Hiroshima City Survey Section (August 1946) | 118,661 dead, 82,807 injured and missing | ||
Nagasaki City A-bomb Records Preservation Committee (December 1945) | 73,884 dead, 74,909 injured | ||
Hiroshima and Nagasaki report to Secretary-General (1976) | 140k ± 10k | 70k ± 10k | 210 ± 20k |
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1979/1981), p. 363–9 (dead+missing) | |||
Hiroshima Prefecture, Governor's report, 20 August 1945 | 42,550 | ||
Hiroshima Prefecture, public health section report, 25 August 1945 | 63,614 | ||
Hiroshima Prefecture, police department report, 30 November 1945 | 92,133 | ||
Hiroshima City, "official report," 8 March 1946 | 64,610 | ||
Hiroshima City, survey section report, 10 August 1946 | 122,338 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1951 | 64,602 | ||
Japan Council against A- and H-bombs: "White paper on A-bomb damages," 1961 [military personnel not included] | 151,900–165,900 | ||
Nagasaki Prefecture, report, 31 August 1945 | 21,672 | ||
Nagasaki Prefecture, external affairs section, 23 October 1945 | 25,677 | ||
Private estimate by Motosaburo Masuyama, January 1946 survey | 29,398–37,507 | ||
British Mission report | 39,500 | ||
Nagasaki City, A-bomb Records Preservation Committee, 1949 | 73,884 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1951 | 29,570–39214 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1956 | 39,000 | ||
?, November 1945 | 130,000, including 20,000 military deaths | ||
Yuzaki and Ueoka, 1976 | 60–70,000 | ||
United Nations, 1967 [based on H. police report, N. ext. aff., above] | 78,000 | 27,000 | 105,000 |
estimated populations - 283,508 known survivors in 1950 | 200,000 | 140,000 | 340,000 |
Source | Hiroshima | Nagasaki | Total |
Since there is no estimate in this list lower than 100,000, I'm returning that minimum figure to the opening paragraph. KarlBunker 21:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Frank being quoted as the expert on fatalities when that is not what he studied and that point has been made before. Encyclopedia Brittanica is also not authoritative in that we do not know where their figures derive.
The Manhattan Engineering District are clearly lowball early numbers by the bombers who had demonstrated interest in keeping numbers low. Frank's low ball (minimum numbers) come from there. What is the credibility more than half a century later when the after effects of radiation are well-know and documented?
RERF (and the two affected cities) studied it. Why not acknowledge that and quit beating around the bush?
It is pure propaganda to rely on Frank for what he did not study. It is his opinion as a journalist. That is it.
skywriter 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
When Frank was awarded the Truman book award, the press release was headed: MILITARY HISTORIAN WINS 2000 TRUMAN BOOK AWARD. It gave this description: "Richard B. Frank was born in Kansas in 1947. Upon graduation from the University of Missouri in 1969, he was commissioned in the United States Army, in which he served almost four years, including a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam as an aerorifle platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division. In 1976, he completed studies at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. The following year he began research on his first book, Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Campaign, which was published in 1990. He lives in Annandale, Virginia." So he graduated university, did an army hitch, and went to law school, finishing (not necessarily with a degree) at the age of 28 or 29. By 30 at least he had become a historian, or if you prefer, a writer of history books. I would call him a historian; no doubt a PhD historian wouldn't, but that's just job protection. The man writes histories; what else but a historian can he be? -- Cubdriver 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The last row in the table is a bit confusing, here's the full quote:
It looks like (estimated_city_pop - bombing_casulties_1945 - reported_survivors_1950 = deaths_1945_to_1950) EricR 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not surprising Frank received the Truman award as his book is sympathetic to Truman. Frank is an author, the writer of two nonfiction books. He is a freelance journalist to the extent that the Weekly Standard published an article by him. Anyone wanting to embelish his credentials for the purpose of inflating his importance in this Wikipedia article can of course continue to claim he is a "historian". skywriter 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the estimate is suspect or not! Good grief, what could be more suspect than an estimate of 220,000 deaths "with many more"? The estimate of 64,222 exists. The statement as phrased is that estimates range from XXX to XXX. So the lower number has to be 64,222 or the sentence must be changed (as I earlier changed it, so that it merely said "ranged up to XXX"). Otherwise Wiki simply becomes a propaganda vehicle for egregious numbers. Why don't we just make it 500,000 and be done with it? Or we could use the entire 1940 population of Japan: 70 million. Or perhaps the 1940 population of the world: 2 billion. After all, everyone alive in August 1945 will eventually be dead. -- Cubdriver 13:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In view of the chronic vandalism, I'm thinking about semi-protecting this article. Any opinions? —wwoods 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest changing all instances of the widespread but incorrect "atomic" to the correct "nuclear," except in book titles and so forth. All nations possess atomic bombs; we typically call them chemical bombs. They release energy by rearranging atoms. The bombs detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki released energy by rearranging nucleons. Hence, they were nuclear bombs. Thoughts? 199.90.6.26 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this because it is original research. The Japanese home islands were defended. Before the legality or otherwise of Hague is used in this article there should be a reliable source which says that the use of the bomb contravened treaty obligations (see Area bombing#Aerial area bombardment and international law). Here is one source which says that that it was not a contravention of treaty obligations to bomb enemy cities:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to: Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963? -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) reprinted in Richard A. Falk, Saul H. Mendlovitz eds., ed. (1966). "The Shimoda Case: Challenge and Response". The Strategy of World Order. Volume: 1. New York: World Law Fund. pp. 307–13. {{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)It seems to me from reading the transcript above that the arguments are the work of two (three?) experts and perhaps the best way of phrasing it would be as they do in the case: 'in the "Expert Opinions of Shigejiro Tabata and Yuichi Takano"'.
Were there no expert witnesses brought and bought by the State to defend the position that there is a contrary view? Or are Japanese cases like this more magisterial than adversarial?
A major indirect criticism of part of this particular ruling can be extrapolated from the the ICJ judgement given on July 8, 1996 on the " Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons"
To paraphrase: It can be taken as indicative that, in the practice of States (during World War II), was to consider that all enemy territory was under defended air space, {because of integrated national defence systems like the Kammhuber Line}. So the practice is clear and the parties to those instruments have not treated them as referring to aerial bombardment. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Article 25 argument is is a fiction. Its terms are so broad & vague, it's impossible to know what "undefended" means, & since Japan's cities had AA guns & fighter protection, they weren't "undefended" in the strictest sense. Trekphiler 10:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with this cat? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
When you click the picture that shows the aftermath of the bombing, it links to a different picture. How and why? And you can also see some logo ("National Library of Medicine," I think) shining through.-- The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Spirit of Hiroshima is an often used title, but i think the new citation is referring to this; there are much better sources available if we want to put the 140k and 70k numbers in the intro. Mikiso Hane, Modern Japan: A Historical Survey has all of two paragraphs on the bombings–citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can find no mention at all of Korean survivors or casuaties. EricR 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For Were We the Enemy? i find this:
on page 3 of the introduction, but so far nothing that states 3k of 4k were killed. EricR 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the rejection of Frank's work. His total of 100,000 to 200,000 is iffy, but he provides sources for the estimates he bases these off, and they aren't all US. I added these estimates (Hiroshima prefecture police, Manhatten Engineering District, USSBS, Japan Economic Stabilization Board, and OSW/USNR) to the article, using Frank's book as a handy reference. Nor do I understand referring to him as an apologist, unless somebody is prepared to show why he is unreliable. Unless somebody is willing to show why these estimates are invalid, I'd suggest keeping both sets. Dht 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Truman speech now directs to an archive of MLK Jr. videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.82.177 ( talk • contribs).
The following is currently in the introduction: "This number does not include the thousands more in Hiroshima that died in the months and years after December 1945 because of the aftereffects of the bomb." Further into the article, there's a section titled "Post-attack casualties." The reference in this section [8] actually doesn't support a figure of thousands, but rather hundreds, and that's for both cities combined. Unfortunately, the figures are for 1950-1990, leaving a 5 year gap after the December 1945 figure quoted in the introduction for Hiroshima. Still, with no cited source, the figure of "thousands" of post 12/1945 casualties in Hiroshima should be removed, IMO.
There are other problems with the "Post-attack casualties" section. The first sentence refers to effects among "those who survived the initial explosion" (that includes most of the world), and the last sentence refers to "everyone who was in the city when the bomb exploded or was later exposed to fallout who has since died" (since died, regardless of cause of death?) I'm going to try to clean up that section. KarlBunker 12:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the reference from the Article that leaflets were dropped BEFORE Hiroshima. please elaborate. how many days, what was the full content of the leaflets?
"U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who was unaware of the Manhattan Project until Franklin Roosevelt's death, made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender. On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan:
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland..." "...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." The next day, Japanese papers reported that the declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped on leaflets into Japan, had been rejected. The atomic bomb was still a highly guarded secret and not mentioned in the declaration."
...please note the last line.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.107.88 ( talk • contribs).
What's the existing rate of fallout for the cities? I mean, if Chernobyl supposedly will take hundreds of years to recover from, is it the midair explosion that disperses most of the fallout, or something? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a sentence, toward the beginning of the article, which reads:
"the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50–150,000 civilian deaths, 100–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths"
I read this as: between 50 and 150,000 civilian deaths, and between 100 and 125,000 military deaths. That is quite a range. I imagine the intended range is between 50,000 and 150,000, then 100,000 and 125,000. It is not appropriate to abbreviate in this fashion, should this be the case, as it is thoroughly confusing. I'm not going to make changes until someone clarifies.— Kbolino
I've moved this article up to "Top"; I think this is one of those cases where you'd be shocked if a random person didn't recognize it. Kirill Lokshin 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I should note that the inclusion of this article as a project of the "Military History" group is disturbing. Most military historians are not especially noted for their objectivity or academic rigor. This is especially an issue in something as complicated as the nuclear bombings. There should be a bias alert posted on this article to deal with such concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.148.2.238 ( talk • contribs) .
First, your comment is cloaked in anonymity. Not good. Second, your allegation of bias without reference is an intended slur. There are aspects within this article that deal directly with the military project and they are best addressed by those versed in the field. They can be reviewed and edited to address any concerns of POV. If you are arguing that these aspects should be eliminated altogether, then the article must be divided up into "what happened" and "what it means" segments. In the "what happened" aspect the expertise of those familiar with military history still applies.--Buckboard 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like that so that the article will be in the generally utilized format for presenting military history topics. It was a military event and should be presented as one. All of the discussion about the long term effects on survivors, etc may need to be placed in a separate article like the Hibakusha article if the "aftermath" section becomes unwieldy. I'm sure this has been discussed before in prior, archived discussion pages, but it doesn't seem like anything's been done about it. I'll eventually get to this article, but I currently have others much higher on my "to do" list. Cla68 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two pictures of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall / "Peace Dome" in this article. Should the captions be merged and one of the pictures deleted? Arx Fortis 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember something about how some curators at the Smithsonian got into serious trouble for an exhibit about the bombings. Does anyone have any info on that? I think it would make a perfect footnote to this article. Wandering Star 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that once an area is exposed to radiation from a nuclear blast, that area becomes, for all intents and purposes, poisonous to life. For example, 50 years after the Bikini Atoll blasts, some of those islands are still uninhabitable for humans. How were Hiroshima and Nagasaki different? 192.231.128.67 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The "matter/energy" conversion for the Nagasaki bomb is incorrect; the article says "grams" when actually it should say "kilograms". Sorry for my ignorance as to protocols regarding editing. Cheers. 66.147.52.69 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the amount of mass converted to energy is interesting info. Let's redo the calcs starting from the stated yield of 21 kilotons of TNT:
(21 kilotons) x (4.184 TJ/kiloton of TNT) = 88 TJ
E = Mc^2
88,000,000,000,000 J = M(300,000,000 m/s)^2
88,000,000,000,000 kg m^2/s^2 = M(90,000,000,000,000,000 m^2/s^2)
This gives me about a thousandth of a kg, or a gram, as the mass converted to energy, which is what the article (but not the source) originally said. Does this look right ? StuRat 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your revert.
- Bolton's comments about the ICC were predicated upon his support of the bombings. That makes his quote irrelevant to the Opposition section. Why do you believe it belongs there?
- Also, the state terrorism paragraph is necessary -- touching it is tantamount to censorship. Why did you delete it in the first place? Why are you deleting it again now?
Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Lopez, George A. (1988). Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism. pp. p. 338.Thomas Schelling, in Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), maintains that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of political terror, since the U.S. intent was not to eliminate civilians but to send a message of terror and shock to the decision-makers in Tokyo and Kyoto. Schelling’s more recent rumination on nuclear weapons, "Thinking About Nuclear Terrorism,” International Security 6, no. 2 (1982), goes even further. He argues that he cannot conceive of any use of nuclear weapons which would not be considered as terrorism.
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
EricR 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)I would like to suggest moving the 1st 2 factors or arguments under 7.2 'opposition' to 7, before the pro 7.1 and con 7.2, and add discussion of the strategic decison itself: That the decision of the US to use the bomb was to demonstrate to the USSR that US had the bomb, and would use it. The immediate threat from Japan was already gone, and the future threat to the US was from the USSR in both Europe, and in Manchuria and Japan. This stopped the USSR advancement, more important than accelerateing Japan's surrender. Comment? Reference? Bcameron54 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
PS nice to see reference to "Racing the Enemy' by Hasegawa
ISBN
0-674-01693-9
I didn't read all of the discussion, but there seems to be the impression that the question if the nuclear attacks on the cities were war crimes (at the time) couldn't be answered clearly. But there's no major difficulty: the United States signed the Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) as well as the Geneva Convention (1928 if i recall correctly) - both conventions designating indiscriminate or deliberate killing of civilians illegal, which makes the actions necessarily a war crime in time of war. If you wish i'd be glad to search for the precise sections, but as i said there's no real problem there.
That's why i was surprised that the article doesn't contain that as simple objective information, but depicts that more as some sort of opinion...? Cycling fan22 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here's a source in english for Hague IV, October 18, 1907:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
1. non-ambiguous violations of the treaty:
2. in all probability, although some may not accept:
3. Conclusion: There were at least 2 violations of Hague IV (also common law at the time) and therefore the laws of war. The article should state that for the sake of NPOV in one sentence, maybe somewhere in the introduction? Cycling fan22 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
See further up this page #poisonous weapon and Area bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law and Talk:Area bombardment#Atomic Bombs-- Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The image caption A Japanese report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as "like a graveyard with not a tombstone standing." used to point to Image:AtomicEffects-p4.jpg but was changed to point to Image:Nagasaki temple destroyed.jpg with the explanation this the latter was a more interesting image. The previous image has flatter rubble, while the latter has in the foreground a pile of rubble with some statues. I think the previous image better illustrates the caption, and don't know if a more interesting image is better nor appropriate. ( SEWilco 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
The problem with the caption is that regardless of the Japanese report, the new image indicates that there were still scattered structures and portions of structures standing. I suggest the caption be changed to reflect the reality of the situation as photo-documented, not the contemporary (and likely emotionally charged) report. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, whoever did that first paragraph about State Sponsored Terrorism comes off as vehemently anti-american. Not a good look for Wikipedia especially on the page of such a controversial moment in history. There is no mention in that paragraph of the Japaneses will to fight to the last man, and the State Sponsored Terrorism Wiki defines the phrase of having no agreed upon definition, which is a contradiction. WWII was a horrible war, all sides employed methods of terror to help the war effort. This sentence needs to be removed. Curiosity998 ( talk) 23:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I have removed the unsourced speculation that that use of the bombs could have been tried as a crime against humanity. See archive Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 5#Crime against humanity and a war crime for more on this topic. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Bombing cities (i.e. civilian targets) was of course not a war crime in the period 1936-1945. Otherwise all the world's gallows would have broken under the strain. There were quite literally tens of thousands of aviators who spent the best years of their lives doing just that, from Guernica in 1936 to Kokura in 1945. -- Cubdriver 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Non-exhaustive list. Please add to it, including off-line references.
Tazmaniacs 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. So, to answer Shearer's previous questions concerning the deleted (a long time ago) statement "It has been argued that the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings constituted war crimes & crimes against humanity" (Shearer asked: "Who has argued that? Without sources this should be removed"), well, I hope I've shown enough here (and I haven't listed many websites which would have been accused of being either environmentalists or left-wing, but there is a large part of these people who do argue so): Hannah Arendt for one has argued so, as well as the mayor of Hiroshima, and even John Bolton justify the US refusal to enter the ICC by stating that if it had been previously in force, than the US would have been judged for Hiroshima! Tazmaniacs 12:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten this section, although mostly I just rearranged the existing content for (IMO) better organization and clarity. There is some increased emphasis on the terms "war crime" and "crime against humanity", as those terms have often been used by opponents of the bombings. I included a small amount of new material, taking advantage of Tazmaniacs's research above. KarlBunker 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced paragraph:
Because the ICJ made clear in paragraph 55 and 56 of their 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons that "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate. This practice is clear, and the parties to those instruments [(Hague IV and Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925)] have not treated them as referring to nuclear weapons. In view of this, it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol (see paragraph 54 above)." -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The bombings of Axis cities were most certainly NOT controversial in the U.S. That's ridiculous: who in the U.S. opposed them? I doubt they were controversial in Japan either! (Who in Japan was arguing in favor of them?) That's to misunderstand the times, which I concede is a very popular activity 60 years down the line. The perspective here pretends to be August 1945 but is actually that of March 2005. Further, the bombing of Axis cities cannot be understand without mention of the bombing of cities BY the Axis air forces. Wiki is ridiculous enough without this sort of one-eyed hindsight. The bombings were devastating, destructive, whatever adjective along that line you prefer, but they were not controversial; and they were two-sided. In Asia the die was cast eight years previously at Shanghai by the JNAF; in Europe, nine years earlier by the German Condor Legion. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as was said at the time. -- Cubdriver 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The point I tried to make was that city-busting was routine from 1936 to 1945. It has only become controversial (which implies widespread condemnation as we now understand the term) postwar when we were graced with the opportunity to sit down and survey the wreck of much of the world. To say *follow* is to imply a logical progression, and to say *controversial* is to imply that the plan was widely condemned, and to mention only *Allied* bombings is to imply that this was all a devilish invention of Churchill and Roosevelt. What the Hiroshima bombing *followed* was an eight-year history of destroying whole cities, and not just by aerial bombardment. A truly neutral discussion would cite Nanjing and Warsaw here (Wiki gives death tolls of perhaps 200,000 and 250,000 for these two events) as well as Guernica, Chongqing, Rotterdam, Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin (which was largely destroyed in May by block to block fighting). -- Cubdriver 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"This page is 149 kilobytes long." I'll make a new archive page of the discussions from early March, which are apparently no longer active. Does anyone want any of them kept on this page? Casualties? Radiation sickness? Soviet invasion? Obviously these subjects haven't been settled for good and all...
—wwoods 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Done.
—wwoods 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: a recent revert: The "intelligent" part of Kyoto in the original document (of the 2nd meeting of the Target Committee) seems to me rather clearly to list it as a reason for bombing it, not against it (it lists it as a psychological advantage, whereas on the other targets when it lists detriments it is very clear about them being reasons not to bomb them). The fact that the document itself still lists Kyoto as the top target seems to back that up, as well as the fact that Stimson himself later got Kyoto removed from the list. I also think that I better summed up the reasons for the selection of Hiroshima than the version you reverted to, if you look at the document itself. [2] But I'm happy to defer to the opinions of others and have no interest in a revert war. -- Fastfission 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Skywriter, mention of Hague Conventions probably needs some other source than the documents themselves, such as:
Boyle, Francis A. (2002). The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence. Clarity Press. p. 58.
Though there a probably some POV problems w/ this source (it's just the first one i found), especially when inserted into the "Choice of Targets" section. EricR 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I vigorously protest the move of "The United States selected Japanese cities as targets for nuclear bombing without regard to international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1907. [3]" to the subheading Opposition to use of atomic bombs without prior discussion.
This one sentence was established international law, not opposition stated soon before or after the bombings. I intend to return it to "Choice of Targets" because that is exactly where it belongs. Further, the treaty wording is plain English and does not require interpretation by secondary source.
Nor do the treaty wordings require the addition of the "everybody does it" defense. The dropping of nuclear bombs on civilian populations is unique in history. skywriter 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Karl, it is apparent you have an axe to grind, called sugar-coating. The dropping of weapons of nuclear weapons on civilian populations is unique in the history of warfare, and violated at least two Hague conventions in ways that had never been done before or and so far has never been done since.
As previously stated, the "everybody does it defense" is neither moral nor persusasive. Each combatant is responsible for its own actions without regard to war crimes of others. That precept follows directly from Nuremburg.
That the U.S. was not nailed for violating treaties it had signed and ratified was only because it was one of the two primary victors to emerge from WW II, and it is well-known victors are not punished, only losers. The difference here between our two positions is I trust readers to make up their own minds based on facts and you do not. You would obfuscate it or move it to an area where readers would not necessarily make that connection. You have moved it to an area where it is a pro and con issue, which is itself false. This was established international law. These 25 words --- "The United States selected Japanese cities as targets for nuclear bombing without regard to international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1902 and 1907. [4]"--- are factual, and derive from the same source (dannen) and same page where the rest of that section comes, (except for the honeymoon business came) yet you want to pretend it is unrelated.
What is the evidence the four target cities were defended against atomic warfare? What is the evidence the U.S. warned the population what was about to occur?
In one of the histories of Nagasaki, it was stated there were bomb shelters in the hills that would have protected civilians, had they had prior warning. skywriter 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you know of a law or treaty (de jure) that I don't. Identify one example where the U.S. government has ratified an attack on civilian populations. After the fact, it is usually denied that it was intentional. In the case of the Japanese cities, it was an intentional attack on an urban i.e. civilian population. skywriter 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated several times already, destruction of cities was routine in this era. Perhaps the United States did it less overtly than the Japanese, Germans, and British, but no one could pretend after Dresden and Tokyo that the USAAF didn't target cities. It was the concept of strategic bombing that was the veneer. How can one possibly speak of a war crime that is standard practice? Destroying Hiroshima was no more a war crime than shooting a soldier in combat was homicide. One can argue that war itself is a crime, but that's an argument for another venue. -- Cubdriver 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as viewpoints are being aired on this matter, let me say the bombing of civilians is never routine and never morally justified. The examples Wwoods proffers are military justifications (and ceelbrations) for a tactical decision, not a defense in then existing international law of the strategic decision. That there was international law then on this topic is ignored in the article and on this talk page, and a continuing rush to defend the US 1945 position. 1,810,000 pages include the words: Hiroshima moral. That suggests the matter of the nuclear bombing of civilian populations is hardly settled.
The Allies were roundly condemned throughout the world for bombing Tokyo and Dresden. I am surprised you view that not as widely debated but widely agreed upon.
As to Wwoods argument that the US went after military targets, that also is not true for several reasons. The military activities were provably on the periphery of Hiroshima where the bomb did the least damage. The most damage was done to civilians at the center.
If the US were seriously interested in destroying the Japanese war machine, then Richard Frank provides the best rationale for doing so in his description of the buildup of Japanese troops on the island where their commanders correctly assumed they could expect a homeland invasion. The US had the choice of taking out the gathering Japanese armies or taking out its civilians, and chose the latter.
Drill presses prove nothing but the existence of industry, and are not justification for nuclear bombing. The article tilts in the direction of defending US justifications for what it did, and the edits are inflexible in the prohibition of facts on this matter in the target section.
Much documentation has been provided concerning radiation illness that persisted over the decades and there was much discussion here, yet nothing has been added to the article, which reads as if there were no longterm residual effects. skywriter 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see that someone had the courage to delete this noxious section, and I'm sorry to see it reverted. Why don't we call the section "Trivia" and be honest about it? Maybe we can even come up with some sick jokes to round it out and give it the right tone. Cultural! (Dr Atomic is cultural, I suppose, but perhaps to include an opera would lift the level of discussion too high?) -- Cubdriver 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Added two citations for the opening section, but they are both fairly weak support. Maybe we would do better to just to list important viewpoints rather than an "American" and "Japanese" outlook? EricR 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Any idea where the 90% civilian figure comes from? It used to have a {{fact}} attatched when further down in the article. EricR 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
For reference, ongoing discussion, and possible future additions I'm copying this table of various casualty estimates from Archive 7
Source | Hiroshima casualties | Nagasaki casualties | Total casualties |
---|---|---|---|
Encyclopedia Britannica Online | at least 70k dead | 60k-80k dead | 130k-150k dead |
RERF [5] | 90k-140k | 60k-80k | 150k-220k |
Richard Frank's Downfall (1999), p. 285–7 | |||
Imperial General HQ official history [added 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)] | 70k – 120k | ||
Manhattan Engineering District 1946 [6] | 66k dead, 135k total | 39k dead, 64k total | 105k dead, 199k total |
USSBS, March 1947 | 80k dead | 45k dead | 125k dead |
Japan Economic Stabilization Board, April 1949 | 78,150 dead | 23,753 dead | 101,903 dead |
OSW (Japan) and USNR , April 1966 | 70k dead | 36k dead | 106k dead |
Frank's summary: | 100k-200k dead | ||
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1979/1981), p. 113–4 | |||
Special Committee of the Science Council of Japan, 1951 | ~100k dead (in 1945) | ||
Joint Commission (Does not include military: 15-20k dead in H.?) |
58,580-68,670 dead (1945) | 29,398-37,507 dead (1946) | 87,978-106,177 dead |
Hiroshima City Survey Section (August 1946) | 118,661 dead, 82,807 injured and missing | ||
Nagasaki City A-bomb Records Preservation Committee (December 1945) | 73,884 dead, 74,909 injured | ||
Hiroshima and Nagasaki report to Secretary-General (1976) | 140k ± 10k | 70k ± 10k | 210 ± 20k |
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1979/1981), p. 363–9 (dead+missing) | |||
Hiroshima Prefecture, Governor's report, 20 August 1945 | 42,550 | ||
Hiroshima Prefecture, public health section report, 25 August 1945 | 63,614 | ||
Hiroshima Prefecture, police department report, 30 November 1945 | 92,133 | ||
Hiroshima City, "official report," 8 March 1946 | 64,610 | ||
Hiroshima City, survey section report, 10 August 1946 | 122,338 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1951 | 64,602 | ||
Japan Council against A- and H-bombs: "White paper on A-bomb damages," 1961 [military personnel not included] | 151,900–165,900 | ||
Nagasaki Prefecture, report, 31 August 1945 | 21,672 | ||
Nagasaki Prefecture, external affairs section, 23 October 1945 | 25,677 | ||
Private estimate by Motosaburo Masuyama, January 1946 survey | 29,398–37,507 | ||
British Mission report | 39,500 | ||
Nagasaki City, A-bomb Records Preservation Committee, 1949 | 73,884 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1951 | 29,570–39214 | ||
Joint Japan-United States survey report, 1956 | 39,000 | ||
?, November 1945 | 130,000, including 20,000 military deaths | ||
Yuzaki and Ueoka, 1976 | 60–70,000 | ||
United Nations, 1967 [based on H. police report, N. ext. aff., above] | 78,000 | 27,000 | 105,000 |
estimated populations - 283,508 known survivors in 1950 | 200,000 | 140,000 | 340,000 |
Source | Hiroshima | Nagasaki | Total |
Since there is no estimate in this list lower than 100,000, I'm returning that minimum figure to the opening paragraph. KarlBunker 21:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Frank being quoted as the expert on fatalities when that is not what he studied and that point has been made before. Encyclopedia Brittanica is also not authoritative in that we do not know where their figures derive.
The Manhattan Engineering District are clearly lowball early numbers by the bombers who had demonstrated interest in keeping numbers low. Frank's low ball (minimum numbers) come from there. What is the credibility more than half a century later when the after effects of radiation are well-know and documented?
RERF (and the two affected cities) studied it. Why not acknowledge that and quit beating around the bush?
It is pure propaganda to rely on Frank for what he did not study. It is his opinion as a journalist. That is it.
skywriter 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
When Frank was awarded the Truman book award, the press release was headed: MILITARY HISTORIAN WINS 2000 TRUMAN BOOK AWARD. It gave this description: "Richard B. Frank was born in Kansas in 1947. Upon graduation from the University of Missouri in 1969, he was commissioned in the United States Army, in which he served almost four years, including a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam as an aerorifle platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division. In 1976, he completed studies at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. The following year he began research on his first book, Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Campaign, which was published in 1990. He lives in Annandale, Virginia." So he graduated university, did an army hitch, and went to law school, finishing (not necessarily with a degree) at the age of 28 or 29. By 30 at least he had become a historian, or if you prefer, a writer of history books. I would call him a historian; no doubt a PhD historian wouldn't, but that's just job protection. The man writes histories; what else but a historian can he be? -- Cubdriver 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The last row in the table is a bit confusing, here's the full quote:
It looks like (estimated_city_pop - bombing_casulties_1945 - reported_survivors_1950 = deaths_1945_to_1950) EricR 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not surprising Frank received the Truman award as his book is sympathetic to Truman. Frank is an author, the writer of two nonfiction books. He is a freelance journalist to the extent that the Weekly Standard published an article by him. Anyone wanting to embelish his credentials for the purpose of inflating his importance in this Wikipedia article can of course continue to claim he is a "historian". skywriter 18:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether the estimate is suspect or not! Good grief, what could be more suspect than an estimate of 220,000 deaths "with many more"? The estimate of 64,222 exists. The statement as phrased is that estimates range from XXX to XXX. So the lower number has to be 64,222 or the sentence must be changed (as I earlier changed it, so that it merely said "ranged up to XXX"). Otherwise Wiki simply becomes a propaganda vehicle for egregious numbers. Why don't we just make it 500,000 and be done with it? Or we could use the entire 1940 population of Japan: 70 million. Or perhaps the 1940 population of the world: 2 billion. After all, everyone alive in August 1945 will eventually be dead. -- Cubdriver 13:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In view of the chronic vandalism, I'm thinking about semi-protecting this article. Any opinions? —wwoods 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest changing all instances of the widespread but incorrect "atomic" to the correct "nuclear," except in book titles and so forth. All nations possess atomic bombs; we typically call them chemical bombs. They release energy by rearranging atoms. The bombs detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki released energy by rearranging nucleons. Hence, they were nuclear bombs. Thoughts? 199.90.6.26 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this because it is original research. The Japanese home islands were defended. Before the legality or otherwise of Hague is used in this article there should be a reliable source which says that the use of the bomb contravened treaty obligations (see Area bombing#Aerial area bombardment and international law). Here is one source which says that that it was not a contravention of treaty obligations to bomb enemy cities:
-- Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to: Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963? -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) reprinted in Richard A. Falk, Saul H. Mendlovitz eds., ed. (1966). "The Shimoda Case: Challenge and Response". The Strategy of World Order. Volume: 1. New York: World Law Fund. pp. 307–13. {{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help)It seems to me from reading the transcript above that the arguments are the work of two (three?) experts and perhaps the best way of phrasing it would be as they do in the case: 'in the "Expert Opinions of Shigejiro Tabata and Yuichi Takano"'.
Were there no expert witnesses brought and bought by the State to defend the position that there is a contrary view? Or are Japanese cases like this more magisterial than adversarial?
A major indirect criticism of part of this particular ruling can be extrapolated from the the ICJ judgement given on July 8, 1996 on the " Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons"
To paraphrase: It can be taken as indicative that, in the practice of States (during World War II), was to consider that all enemy territory was under defended air space, {because of integrated national defence systems like the Kammhuber Line}. So the practice is clear and the parties to those instruments have not treated them as referring to aerial bombardment. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Article 25 argument is is a fiction. Its terms are so broad & vague, it's impossible to know what "undefended" means, & since Japan's cities had AA guns & fighter protection, they weren't "undefended" in the strictest sense. Trekphiler 10:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with this cat? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
When you click the picture that shows the aftermath of the bombing, it links to a different picture. How and why? And you can also see some logo ("National Library of Medicine," I think) shining through.-- The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Spirit of Hiroshima is an often used title, but i think the new citation is referring to this; there are much better sources available if we want to put the 140k and 70k numbers in the intro. Mikiso Hane, Modern Japan: A Historical Survey has all of two paragraphs on the bombings–citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can find no mention at all of Korean survivors or casuaties. EricR 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For Were We the Enemy? i find this:
on page 3 of the introduction, but so far nothing that states 3k of 4k were killed. EricR 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the rejection of Frank's work. His total of 100,000 to 200,000 is iffy, but he provides sources for the estimates he bases these off, and they aren't all US. I added these estimates (Hiroshima prefecture police, Manhatten Engineering District, USSBS, Japan Economic Stabilization Board, and OSW/USNR) to the article, using Frank's book as a handy reference. Nor do I understand referring to him as an apologist, unless somebody is prepared to show why he is unreliable. Unless somebody is willing to show why these estimates are invalid, I'd suggest keeping both sets. Dht 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to the Truman speech now directs to an archive of MLK Jr. videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.82.177 ( talk • contribs).
The following is currently in the introduction: "This number does not include the thousands more in Hiroshima that died in the months and years after December 1945 because of the aftereffects of the bomb." Further into the article, there's a section titled "Post-attack casualties." The reference in this section [8] actually doesn't support a figure of thousands, but rather hundreds, and that's for both cities combined. Unfortunately, the figures are for 1950-1990, leaving a 5 year gap after the December 1945 figure quoted in the introduction for Hiroshima. Still, with no cited source, the figure of "thousands" of post 12/1945 casualties in Hiroshima should be removed, IMO.
There are other problems with the "Post-attack casualties" section. The first sentence refers to effects among "those who survived the initial explosion" (that includes most of the world), and the last sentence refers to "everyone who was in the city when the bomb exploded or was later exposed to fallout who has since died" (since died, regardless of cause of death?) I'm going to try to clean up that section. KarlBunker 12:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the reference from the Article that leaflets were dropped BEFORE Hiroshima. please elaborate. how many days, what was the full content of the leaflets?
"U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who was unaware of the Manhattan Project until Franklin Roosevelt's death, made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender. On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan:
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland..." "...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." The next day, Japanese papers reported that the declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped on leaflets into Japan, had been rejected. The atomic bomb was still a highly guarded secret and not mentioned in the declaration."
...please note the last line.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.107.88 ( talk • contribs).
What's the existing rate of fallout for the cities? I mean, if Chernobyl supposedly will take hundreds of years to recover from, is it the midair explosion that disperses most of the fallout, or something? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a sentence, toward the beginning of the article, which reads:
"the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50–150,000 civilian deaths, 100–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths"
I read this as: between 50 and 150,000 civilian deaths, and between 100 and 125,000 military deaths. That is quite a range. I imagine the intended range is between 50,000 and 150,000, then 100,000 and 125,000. It is not appropriate to abbreviate in this fashion, should this be the case, as it is thoroughly confusing. I'm not going to make changes until someone clarifies.— Kbolino
I've moved this article up to "Top"; I think this is one of those cases where you'd be shocked if a random person didn't recognize it. Kirill Lokshin 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I should note that the inclusion of this article as a project of the "Military History" group is disturbing. Most military historians are not especially noted for their objectivity or academic rigor. This is especially an issue in something as complicated as the nuclear bombings. There should be a bias alert posted on this article to deal with such concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.148.2.238 ( talk • contribs) .
First, your comment is cloaked in anonymity. Not good. Second, your allegation of bias without reference is an intended slur. There are aspects within this article that deal directly with the military project and they are best addressed by those versed in the field. They can be reviewed and edited to address any concerns of POV. If you are arguing that these aspects should be eliminated altogether, then the article must be divided up into "what happened" and "what it means" segments. In the "what happened" aspect the expertise of those familiar with military history still applies.--Buckboard 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like that so that the article will be in the generally utilized format for presenting military history topics. It was a military event and should be presented as one. All of the discussion about the long term effects on survivors, etc may need to be placed in a separate article like the Hibakusha article if the "aftermath" section becomes unwieldy. I'm sure this has been discussed before in prior, archived discussion pages, but it doesn't seem like anything's been done about it. I'll eventually get to this article, but I currently have others much higher on my "to do" list. Cla68 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two pictures of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall / "Peace Dome" in this article. Should the captions be merged and one of the pictures deleted? Arx Fortis 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember something about how some curators at the Smithsonian got into serious trouble for an exhibit about the bombings. Does anyone have any info on that? I think it would make a perfect footnote to this article. Wandering Star 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that once an area is exposed to radiation from a nuclear blast, that area becomes, for all intents and purposes, poisonous to life. For example, 50 years after the Bikini Atoll blasts, some of those islands are still uninhabitable for humans. How were Hiroshima and Nagasaki different? 192.231.128.67 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The "matter/energy" conversion for the Nagasaki bomb is incorrect; the article says "grams" when actually it should say "kilograms". Sorry for my ignorance as to protocols regarding editing. Cheers. 66.147.52.69 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the amount of mass converted to energy is interesting info. Let's redo the calcs starting from the stated yield of 21 kilotons of TNT:
(21 kilotons) x (4.184 TJ/kiloton of TNT) = 88 TJ
E = Mc^2
88,000,000,000,000 J = M(300,000,000 m/s)^2
88,000,000,000,000 kg m^2/s^2 = M(90,000,000,000,000,000 m^2/s^2)
This gives me about a thousandth of a kg, or a gram, as the mass converted to energy, which is what the article (but not the source) originally said. Does this look right ? StuRat 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your revert.
- Bolton's comments about the ICC were predicated upon his support of the bombings. That makes his quote irrelevant to the Opposition section. Why do you believe it belongs there?
- Also, the state terrorism paragraph is necessary -- touching it is tantamount to censorship. Why did you delete it in the first place? Why are you deleting it again now?
Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Lopez, George A. (1988). Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism. pp. p. 338.Thomas Schelling, in Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), maintains that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of political terror, since the U.S. intent was not to eliminate civilians but to send a message of terror and shock to the decision-makers in Tokyo and Kyoto. Schelling’s more recent rumination on nuclear weapons, "Thinking About Nuclear Terrorism,” International Security 6, no. 2 (1982), goes even further. He argues that he cannot conceive of any use of nuclear weapons which would not be considered as terrorism.
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
EricR 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)I would like to suggest moving the 1st 2 factors or arguments under 7.2 'opposition' to 7, before the pro 7.1 and con 7.2, and add discussion of the strategic decison itself: That the decision of the US to use the bomb was to demonstrate to the USSR that US had the bomb, and would use it. The immediate threat from Japan was already gone, and the future threat to the US was from the USSR in both Europe, and in Manchuria and Japan. This stopped the USSR advancement, more important than accelerateing Japan's surrender. Comment? Reference? Bcameron54 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
PS nice to see reference to "Racing the Enemy' by Hasegawa
ISBN
0-674-01693-9
I didn't read all of the discussion, but there seems to be the impression that the question if the nuclear attacks on the cities were war crimes (at the time) couldn't be answered clearly. But there's no major difficulty: the United States signed the Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) as well as the Geneva Convention (1928 if i recall correctly) - both conventions designating indiscriminate or deliberate killing of civilians illegal, which makes the actions necessarily a war crime in time of war. If you wish i'd be glad to search for the precise sections, but as i said there's no real problem there.
That's why i was surprised that the article doesn't contain that as simple objective information, but depicts that more as some sort of opinion...? Cycling fan22 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here's a source in english for Hague IV, October 18, 1907:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
1. non-ambiguous violations of the treaty:
2. in all probability, although some may not accept:
3. Conclusion: There were at least 2 violations of Hague IV (also common law at the time) and therefore the laws of war. The article should state that for the sake of NPOV in one sentence, maybe somewhere in the introduction? Cycling fan22 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
See further up this page #poisonous weapon and Area bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law and Talk:Area bombardment#Atomic Bombs-- Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The image caption A Japanese report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as "like a graveyard with not a tombstone standing." used to point to Image:AtomicEffects-p4.jpg but was changed to point to Image:Nagasaki temple destroyed.jpg with the explanation this the latter was a more interesting image. The previous image has flatter rubble, while the latter has in the foreground a pile of rubble with some statues. I think the previous image better illustrates the caption, and don't know if a more interesting image is better nor appropriate. ( SEWilco 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC))
The problem with the caption is that regardless of the Japanese report, the new image indicates that there were still scattered structures and portions of structures standing. I suggest the caption be changed to reflect the reality of the situation as photo-documented, not the contemporary (and likely emotionally charged) report. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, whoever did that first paragraph about State Sponsored Terrorism comes off as vehemently anti-american. Not a good look for Wikipedia especially on the page of such a controversial moment in history. There is no mention in that paragraph of the Japaneses will to fight to the last man, and the State Sponsored Terrorism Wiki defines the phrase of having no agreed upon definition, which is a contradiction. WWII was a horrible war, all sides employed methods of terror to help the war effort. This sentence needs to be removed. Curiosity998 ( talk) 23:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)