Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Hiroshima Castle

I saw an IP user's edit was removed per WP:NOTFORUM. I don't understand the removal. At least I find nothing wrong with the new section called "Vaporized castle". The user wrote "Please remove the unsourced and extraordinary claim that Hiroshima castle was turned into vapor. That's a physical impossibility with the distance from, and energy of, the bomb". I think the user is correct as I found these. [1] and [2]. The first one is used in our article Hiroshima Castle. The official site of the castle does not say it was vaporized, but destroyed and burned. The word "vaporized" should be replaced with other word. Additionally, the next sentence in the article says The attack killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground. According to this page, the ref. of the sentence is a fiction. Is the book RS? Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am the IP user, and I am as puzzled as you are. I even sent User:Hot Stop a comment on their talk page, but once again, my query there was removed and no rational explanation was given, you can check their talk pages' edit history. The whole experience left me with serious doubts about this community.
86.41.239.213 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The reference is not a work of fiction. I agree that the castle was not vaporized, and have removed this from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Does the work not claim that Hiroshima Castle was turned into vapor? If it does, it seems to be that it's obviously a work of fiction, or at least a questionable piece of work, certainly incapable of being classified as very reliable. Why should we continue to reference it when superior alternatives exist, like it's primary sources? Moreover why doesn't the article actually explain what happened to the castle - it was flash scorched by the flash, demolished in the blast and finally burned in the fires that followed, you know, to put to rest the urban legend, that's found its way into books, that whole buildings and people were vaporized instantly.
86.41.239.213 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I just hope that the urban legend wasn't started by an error in the Wikipedia. I will dig out what the source actually says, and check it against it's source. In the meantime, if you have a source that describes the destruction of the castle, that would be good. I can incorporate it into the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The urban legend is fairly old but it being regurgitated here doesn't help. I appreciate your desire for factual reporting. Oda's references above are a good primer on what happened to the castle. There are also survivors in the castle who report people outside talking to them moments before succumbing to their burn and blast injuries. Which is just one more nail in the coffin of the urban legend that people were totally vaporized in the flash. Moreover, no mention to the Castle serving as the earliest source of communication to the outside world, that it had been hit by a "new type of bomb" is mentioned in this wiki article, that should be rectified. The Japanese version of this wiki article not only mentions this, but displays a picture of the semi-bunker from which the communication was sent.
located about 700 meters from the hypocenter in a semi-basement on the castle side of the inner moat around Hiroshima Castle. Yoshie Oka (74, Naka Ward, Hiroshima) of Hijiyama Girls High School (present-day Hijiyama Girls Junior and Senior High Schools), who had been mobilized to serve as a communications officer at the same headquarters, writes that she communicated to the nearby headquarters and media organizations the message, "Warning and Alarm Issued for Hiroshima and Yamaguchi…" before being exposed to the flash [of the A-bomb]. She went outside and heard a fallen soldier screaming, "I was hit by a new type of bomb." She returned to the command communications room, got on the restricted use phone and issued the first report to the Fukuyama Headquarters: "Hiroshima has been attacked by a new type of bomb. The city is in a state of near-total destruction."
http://www.asahi.com/hibakusha/english/shimen/happened/happened-01.html
Oda's second reference above has some more of Yoshie Oka's story, and it's importance in relation to the first communication out of the city. Her testimony is also important for stating that people's skin outside was charred black, which is accurate, extensive 3rd degree burns, and even closer to the hypocenter, with at most skin practically laser ablated/exploded off, but no one was turned to vapor or reduced to a white skeleton by the flash as Terminator II would have you believe, unless you're practically inside the fireball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.192.251 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ham p. 325 is merely the source for the number of casualties on the parade ground. It says "The bomb killed 3,243 troops on the parade ground". He uses the USSBS as a source here. I've incoroporated Yoshie Oka's story into the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that the hypocenter was the hospital, not a parade ground. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it was nearly directly over the Shima Hospital, however upon going to that article page(Shima Hospital), once again readers are presented with more nonsense about the blast allegedly turning people into instant "bleached bone skeletons", when in fact the remains took on that appearance due to the mild city crematorium/firestorm that, much later, engulfed the city. This insta-skeleton urban legend is still being perpetrated by Wikipedia. Here's a direct quote from the Shima Hospital article-
Kaoru Shima and the nurse found a large quantity of bleached bones at the bottom of the debris, as the corpses had immediately become skeletonized by the blast.
What are we to do with these poorly referenced claims made by survivors who were merely guessing, like laymen, at the cause of what they were seeing?
The appearance of skeletons after a bombing raid on a city that itself later burned tells you nothing about what the bomb did instantly, indeed are we to suggest on an encyclopedia that the bombs dropped on Dresden, Hamburg etc. had some magical properties because there too, skeleton remains were later found?
I hope you see the problem.
23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.225.43 (talk)

Altitudes of detonations

Various sources describe the altitudes differently. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hiroshima
  • "some 1800 feet (550 m)". Robert F. Dorr, B-29 Superfortress Units of World War 2, page 72.
  • "580 m (1,903 ft)". J. W. Thiessen, Reevaluations of Dosimetric Factors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pages 28, 81, 105, 174–175. Technical Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy, 1982.
  • "About 600 meters". Joseph A. Angelo, Nuclear Technology, page 45. 600 metres (2,000 ft)
  • "The height of burst was set at 1,850 feet." Lillian Hoddeson, Critical Assembly, page 344. 1,850 feet (560 m)
  • Both bursts were intended to be 1,850 feet high. Chuck Hansen, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945.
  • "1,850 feet (560 m)". Richard Holmes, World War II: The Definitive Visual History, page 322.
  • "1,885 feet". Alan Axelrod, Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1, page 425. 1,885 feet (575 m)
  • "1,890 feet". Cole Christian Kingseed, Old Glory Stories, page 167. 1,890 feet (580 m)
  • "1,900 feet". Norman Polmar, The Enola Gay, page 33. 1,900 feet (580 m)
  • "1,900 feet". F.G. Gosling, The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb, page 51.
  • "about 1,900 feet". Andrew J. Rotter, Hiroshima: The World's Bomb, page 14.
  • "1,902 feet". Everett M. Rogers, Nancy R. Bartlit, Silent Voices of World War II, page 22. 1,902 feet (580 m)
  • "1,903 feet". J. Poolos, The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, page 95. 1,903 feet (580 m)
  • "just under 2000 feet". Jim Mason, An Unnatural Order, page 43. 2,000 feet (610 m)
  • "2000 feet". James T Long, Knights of the Far East, page 163.
Nagasaki
  • "Approximately 500 meters". Joseph A. Angelo, Nuclear Technology, page 45. 500 metres (1,600 ft)
  • "503 m (1,650 ft)". J. W. Thiessen, Reevaluations of Dosimetric Factors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pages 28, 81, 105, 174–175. Technical Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy, 1982.
  • "1,540 feet". J. Poolos, The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, page 101. 1,540 feet (470 m)
  • "1,625 feet". Alan Axelrod, Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1, page 585. 1,625 feet (495 m)
  • "1,650 feet". Erik Vincent Koppe, The use of nuclear weapons and the protection of the environment during international armed conflict, page 36. 1,650 feet (500 m)
  • "1,650 feet". Norman Polmar, The Enola Gay, page 39.
  • "1,650 feet". F.G. Gosling, The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb, page 53.

Note that the measurement of altitude during the bombings was mathematical, not actual. The altitude of the aircraft was known, and the bomb drop was timed in seconds. A calculation was made from the initial altitude and the number of seconds from drop to explosion, using an equation for the speed of a falling body. I think the article should give a very rough estimate of altitude, with a footnote describing various ranges found in the sources as above. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the terminal velocities of the bombs were pretty high, so even a little bit of error on the stopwatch would be greatly magnified. The terminal velocity of the Fat Man bomb was less than the speed of sound, and it wobbled as it got near top speed. Another source says that the Little Boy terminal velocity was 2,030 feet per second, that it was traveling downward at the rate of 1,138 fps at detonation, and that it was traveling at 315 miles per hour in the same direction as the Enola Gay had been going at release. The Fat Man bomb had a terminal velocity of 1,005 fps, a falling speed of 901 fps at detonation, and a horizontal speed of 300 mph. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
After the war, the US dropped a bunch of pumpkin bombs at Muroc Dry Lake (Edwards Air Force Base) to try and figure out exactly what the ballistics had been at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They struggled over the inexact altitude reports of Enola Gay at initial release. See this government report. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Outstanding effort, OSTI references are what I like to see!
92.251.225.43 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

I'd like adding, in the line that contains the surrending of Japan in 1945, where the statement exist that armistice happened 'a few days after the USSR entering the war in the allied's side, and the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima an Nagasaki', the sentence 'on premises that Russia, a traditional enemy of Japan, and very close from a Geographic point of view, had declared war to Japan, and started seizing parts of the Japanese territories. (e.g. Sakhalin Island) According to trustable sources, it was USSR entering in war with Japan, and not the A-Bombs what decided Japanese headquarters to surrender, as the Nuclear bombings were not specially worse in terms of any kind of losses than the frequente bombings on other Japanese towns, for example, Tokio.Things were this way, no need, nearly 70 years after the end of WWII, to maintain war propaganda, or to 'justify' the use of Nuclear weapons, hard if ever justifiable. The facts were those that actually happened; with most persons having had a participation in this already dead, the universal deny of the use of Nuclear Weaponry, and the most evident fact, that it's only God who will judge all persons on an individual basis in the last day, for a work with an Encyclopedic intention, truth must prevail. Japan did not surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but because Russians started taking bites of their homeland. This is it! 88.9.161.139 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

'n Hiroshima bombs' as a measure of yield

I'm sure this isn't much of an issue, but I think I'm not alone in having a problem with using the Hiroshima bombing (16kt TNT equivalent) as a measurement of nuclear energy yield. Granted, it has other measurables that deal with the destructive powers of a nuclear bomb on a population center, but it's use presents the moral problem of talking about a destruction event as a measurable. The Trinity test (~20 kt TNT equivalent) would make more sense as a standard nuclear/high-energy bomb measurement, and as neither Hiroshima nor Trinity are standards, Wikipedia can lean toward the latter in terms of preference. -Kenologica (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Counting the deaths at Nagasaki

Today, a new change has been introduced to the article, reducing the number of deaths at Nagasaki. In my readings, I have seen many different numbers, so today's change may be the result of an over-reliance on one source. Even the United States Strategic Bombing Survey is not clear, giving somewhat contradictory numbers. Here is a selection of various estimates:

So it's clear there is a wide variation in estimated casualties, with 20k, 22k, 25k, 35k, 39k, 40k and 75k as the number of people killed immediately, and 27k, 35k, 40k, 49k, 50k, 60k, 64k, 70k, 74k, 85k and 140k showing the wider range of total deaths, including later deaths from bomb effects. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that the Nagasaki bomb was dropped on the outskirts of the city instead of populated areas like what happened in Hiroshima. Since Nagasaki was protected by the hills where the bomb struck, it is quite obvious that the immediate death toll was WAY less than in Hiroshima. Most sources you posted out count between 25,000 to 50,000 immediate deaths with tens of thousands of more dying later on in the years following the war (as posted by Nagasaki official websites). That's why it is quite obvious the immediate death toll in Nagasaki was way less of that of Hiroshima (where the bomb hit downtown areas instead of the outskirts). 75,000 immediate death toll was too high for Nagasaki, considering the bombing of Hiroshima killed between 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion of what can be seen in our sources. It is not a debate about what is thought to be "obvious" by one or more editors. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
First, I agree with Binksternet (talk · contribs), what we are discussing in this section is not the uncited knowledge of any editor. Second, the article needs to reflect the available reliable sources. Lentower (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So wait, now you telling me that we're supposed to anyway based on the sources say, regardless of how many of them? One one or two of them said that 70,000 people were immediately killed but most sources say that between 25,000 to 50,000 people were killed immediately. Otherwise, there isn't anything to advance this. We had to choose which sources are reliable or not or else, this isn't advancing us any further.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is... There is no 'right' number. There are only lots of guesses. What we must do is tell the reader what are the most authoritative guesses, with attribution. The question we have to sort out is how many authorities we should quote, and which ones. I think we should quote the US Bombing Survey, Nagasaki's city officials, the Manhattan Project, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Any others? Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
We should definitely include the lowest and highest counts, from sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. I'm also in favour of including most if not all, sources that do so, unless there is a survey article (that meet Wikipedia's criteria) that reviews many of the guesses, in which case text can be added based on that with the http:// link, and interested readers can use that article's bibliography to find sources. Lentower (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Just like the same way people debate how many people died in Dresden. Some estimated as high as 200,000 people or 50,000 people. However, the best estimates for the death toll in Dresden was between 19,000 to 25,000 and you can't accept the fact that 500,000 deaths in Dresden actually happened. The same way for Nagasaki, 73,000 is just too high for the immediate deaths in Nagasaki bombing, given the circumstances at the time, and most of the sources pretty much lower between 25,000 to 50,000 for immediate deaths. This is widely accepted over the deaths of 150,000 to 500,000 people died immediately in Dresden. That death toll is just ridiculously high and ludicrous. The way I see in the bombing of Dresden article, it should be the same way for this. Off course, there is no right number since it was impossible to verify how many people exactly died in the bombing raids in the war but they should be a best estimate of how many died. The best estimate for Dresden was 18,000 to 25,000 in the same way the immediate death toll for Nagasaki was between 20,000 to 40,000. We have to get to the best estimate as possible.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Please show what sources you are drawing from. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are the estimates of how many people died in Dresden.
Detail about Dresden casualty figures.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You see, it's quite obvious that the best estimate of the deaths was between 18,000-25,000. The numbers between 130,000 to 500,000 was just unrealistic high and unreliable and inflated, given the circumstances at the time. The same applies for the Nagasaki bombing as well. It's quite clear that the best estimate for the immediate death toll in Nagasaki was 35,000-40,000 people. Off course, like you said, there is no right number to how many died, just like Hamburg and Tokyo, but given the circumstances, we have to get to the best estimate as possible which made it obvious.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dresden article is not this article. However, if you look at the talk page and especially the archives, you will find that we determined what would be the best range of casualties by comparing sources, determining which sources performed the best research, and telling the reader about the disputed numbers. A similar approach is appropriate here, I think. Such an approach is different than the one you appear to be proposing, where we pick some sort of "obvious" median number and call it good. Nothing is "obvious" here. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm comparing between Dresden and Nagasaki since you always talked about which sources are reliable or not and what are the best median estimates. Even the Dresden main article said outright that between 22,000 to 25,000 people were killed. And here you even said it yourself that you always want the median numbers as possible, which pretty much contradicts your beginning statement. We can compare the best estimate of disputed numbers, but not the numbers that are highly inflated and ridiculous high. Let's analyze the sources you listed.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, and 12th bullets talks about the immediate deaths between 35,000 to 40,000. The 4th one talks about the 75,000 dead by the end of 1945 (which pretty much contradicts the immediate death of 75,000 in the other source) but this had nothing to do with immediate death. The 5th one said that **perhaps** 75,000 immediately died, though that number just as ludicrous and ridiculous as saying 130,000 people were killed immediately in Dresden. The 6th and 14th bullets said that that probably between 20,000 to 25,000 immediately died. The 7th one talks about the deaths in the months aftermath, not the immediate deaths. The 8th said that 27,000 people immediately died with the 74,000 deaths given by Japanese sources but didn't talk about whether the deaths was in the aftermath or immediately. For the 11th one, this is pretty counterproductive since this Nagasaki City officials website stated that an estimated 73,884 people died (the same number as the 11th bullet in this discussion section) and 74,909 people were injured by the bomb codenamed "Fat Man" by the end of 1945, not in the immediate bombing. Since we are talking about the immediate deaths, that one is out of the discussion. The 13th, 15th, and 16th said that between 60,000 to 70,000 were killed, though the CNN listed that 80,000 people were killed immediately in Hiroshima, which is completely unrealistic or unreliable because it does not go into detail or just took it off based on simple studies. The 13th bullet didn't list 60,000 to 70,000 deaths as immediate or in the aftermath.
Out of these sources and given the circumstances at the time, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, and 12th for the immediate deaths seems to be reliable and reasonable but 13th, 15th, and 16th were). The CNN one looks like as if they picked it up and just put it there like that without studying at all. To have 60,000-70,000 immediate deaths as other sources said, it would count up to 140,000 by the end of 1945, based on the figures by the Nagasaki city officials site. So 60,000 to 70,000 immediate deaths on most of the bullets listed doesn't make sense and dubious. You're not only looking for the death count, you have to look at the reasons behind it. Like why the death toll was lower and stuff like that and I gave a clear reason why. XXzoonamiXX ([[User talk:{{User link||talk]]) 05:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret my words to conclude that I think a median number should be used. Using a median number appears to be your wish, but not mine. I want to tell the reader what various authorities have published, choosing the authorities on the basis of reliability and respectability, rather than choosing them on the basis of what numbers they published.
You are judging the published numbers against a median number, which is not what I propose doing in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet suggested approach here. XXzoonamiXX's has a number of issues with {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. — Lentower (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is supposed to be an agreement between two things and how it should work out. I don't want to pick CNN because it seems they just picked it off and just placed it there without simple studies. I also don't want to pick the Nagasaki city officials because the other source 73,884 people died by the end of 1945, not in the immediate deaths as it appeared to be, which made other sources that stated the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 mute. That could be added, but it would make the other source appear to be complicated and thus resulting in major conflicts, which doesn't work for this article. I don't think your way works because the readers would probably be confused between the deaths of 60,000 to 70,000 when one stated that these exact same number died by the end of 1945 and it would come into general conflict, making the article look unworthy for those who wanted to see the actual facts. It's pretty obvious because I want to tell the readers on the basis of the numbers and the exact circumstances that led to the death toll. Otherwise, then the death rate of 130,000 people should have been added in the Dresden article as well since this was on the basis of reliability and respectability. It doesn't make sense. I agree with some of your points, but some things just doesn't work.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You have lost the consensus here. You latest comment here adds nothing new to this discussion. Repeating yourself is against {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. Other editors do not have to respond to repetitive discussions. Please don't edit the article against the consensus, as you did here[3]. That edit as added was also WP:OR, which is not allowed. My advice is to move on to other editing tasks. — Lentower (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, your comments are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, contradictions, and confirmation bias. You insist that some estimates are "obviously wrong" and cite vague references like "the circumstances at the time". You said you didn't want to use the CNN figure twice, once because it seemed like they derived the figure using simple studies, then later because it seemed like they didn't use simple studies. Instead, please explicitly and formally state your ideas for improvement without all the nonsense. You had some clear thoughts that you were able to express by addressing the bulleted list item by item, but when you express yourself in such an unintelligent manner it makes it difficult to respect anything you have to say. This is not an ad hominem attack, but an appeal to better discourse so that we might have a better article. --Timmytim6912 (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Show count spread with a graphic?

Some sort of graphic would be helpful in showing the distribution of the counts. Lentower (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to McGovern's documentary

Can we add a link to the documentary at http://research.archives.gov/description/65518 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.94.105 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Coal tar smoke screen started by Kokura workers

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/features/news/20140726p2a00m0na014000c.html, dated 2014-07-29:

Miyashiro was at the office next to the factory on that day when he heard a radio broadcast, saying a few U.S. aircraft were flying northward. As an air-raid siren went off, his supervisor told him to start the incinerator, in which oil drums filled with coal tar were lined up. After confirming black smoke shooting up into the air, Miyashiro evacuated to an underground vault. When he returned to the office after the B-29 bombers had flown away, Miyashiro learned that the city of Nagasaki had been attacked by a "new kind of bomb."

The article specifically mentions the official supposition that the smoke over Kokura was from air bombing raids the previous day, but alludes to reports that the smoke in question had cleared up already due to rains.

Keith D. Tyler 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If this can be confirmed, good find man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.79 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Depiction, public response, censorship section

In the afore mentioned section there the sentence:

Laurence dismissed the reports on radiation sickness as Japanese efforts to undermine American morale, ignoring his own account of Hiroshima's radiation sickness published one week earlier.[1]

Who is Laurence? They're not mentioned anywhere else in this section. Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Goodman, Amy; Goodman, David (August 5, 2005). "The Hiroshima Cover-Up". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 15, 2013.
Presumably it is war correspondent William L. Laurence mentioned earlier in the article. SpinningSpark 18:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to article has no citations for facts

Dear ones,

My understanding is that the introduction to this article states facts in every sentence, none of which have any citations. I should note, however, that there are links to Wikipedia articles in most sentences, but I have not checked whether these links make the original facts verifiable and with no original research. On the other hand, there is one fact that has no citation or link, which is in the third paragraph, sentences 4-6 (particularly the 4th sentence), lines 6-11: "Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day." In the body of the article on the Hiroshima bombings section, last paragraph, there is the cited fact of 70k-80k deaths. There are also lots of citations for deaths with the Nagasaki bombings. The death range in the body varies to that of the introduction, with the former being 22k-75k for immediate deaths and 39k-80k by the end of 1945. So in light of this I suggest that that sentence in the introduction be changed to the same ranges for Nagasaki and have a citation needed for the Hiroshima estimates. Please feel free to give any feedback. Jray310 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. It is normal and expected that the lead section is a summary of cited article text. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

United State's should be United States' in the second paragraph.

just move the apostrophe :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.141.15 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Heading name mistake?

The references are titled as "notes" Tetra quark (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

garbled sentence

" [...] estimated that Olympic would result in between 130,000 and 220,000 US-casualties [should read: "and 220,000 total casualties" - shouldn't it?] of which U.S. dead would be the range from 25,000 to 46,000."

Distinguish between military and civilian casualties

I think the death toll info box should distinguish between the number of military and civilian casualties as can be seen in other pages for wars/bombings/genocides etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.87.152 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2015

In the part: There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs then in production for Operation Downfall. The problem [...] Operation Downfall is not linked to the same-name article. Please, link it! Jaylimo84 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Operation Downfall is already linked in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2015

A request to change the "Result" from "Allied Victory" to "American Victory" because America was the only country behind the bombings and even though other countries tried to fight the axis powers, they would have never succeeded without the intimidation of a nuclear weapon that the United States happened to produce on its own. 74.192.194.72 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejected. The United States was not the only country behind the bombings and did not produce the atomic bomb on its own, but with the assistance of other countries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Some quick detail corrections

Replace "The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communiqué." with "The Atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communiqué, but Truman did mention to Stalin that the United States had gained a “new weapon of unusual destruction.” (because Truman did not mention the “atomic bomb,” but he did mention to Stalin that the United States had “a new weapon of unusual destructive force.” I think that my revision should be added to the page because it is a slightly more accurate presentation of the facts. ) On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government.

On July 26, Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.”

Replace "without a surrender," with "without an unconditional surrender." This was actually a major point of the end of the war, because Japan was willing to surrender it just did not want to do so unconditionally. Therefore I believe this added detail will bring more accuracy to the article as a whole.

73.40.254.156 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Micah Wallen

I am unsure why this would be an improvement. The point about the atomic bomb not being mentioned in the communiqué is to let the reader know that Japan was not warned about an atomic attack. That Stalin was informed was true, but not more accurate, because it adds nothing to the article, as it had no impact on the events that are the subject of the article. I have added some extra text to make it clear what terms Japan was willing to surrender on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As a slight aside, Truman was reported as saying of the Russians: 'We sure got an hammer on those boys'. So the first use a nuclear Weapon (of Mass Destruction) was, less the last action of World War Two - and more the first act of the Cold war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.101.231 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dangling quantification

The article says of the Nagasaki bomb that "The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1,005 km/h (624 mph)." Without saying where, this is meaningless. Directly below the bomb, there would have been high temperatures; at moderate distances from the hypocenter, strong airflows after an intense shock. "3,900 °C (7,050 °F)" and "1,005 km/h" are both absurdly precise and meaningless. Further, less; closer, more. 86.153.88.80 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and "heat" isn't a temperature. Just cut it this statement: it contains less than no information.86.153.88.80 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you don't like the wording. You will need to take it up with PBS, however, as the statement is supported by a reference to a documentary shown on PBS. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Famous letter of Einstein to FDR in 1939 recommending development of Atomic Bomb

EDIT REQUEST - This article should refer to Albert Einstein's famous letter to Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 informing the president of Germany's possible development of the atomic bomb and how vital it was for the US to develop the bomb first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.104.60 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The leaflet shown in the section Events of August 7 is quite clearly designated with the number AB-12, not AB-11 as stated. (See the top right of page 2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.248.83 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the AB-11 leaflet, that is in the posession of the Nagasaki museum, suggest that Nagasaki was forewarned, or not? As referencing the leaflet really begs the question - did it arrive before or after the bombing? An answer to this question would most definitely improve the article!
178.167.162.49 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That, I couldn't tell you. I've never been to Nagasaki, and I've never seen the leaflet in question. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Change suggested for "Mitsubishi-Urakami" reference.

The phrase, "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, the factory that manufactured the type 91 torpedoes released in the attack on Pearl Harbor, was destroyed in the blast.[207]", should probably be changed to, "The Nagasaki Arsenal was largely destroyed in the blast", for several reasons. Reference 207, "The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki", part of the 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey, contains no reference to "The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works", or torpedoes, or the Type 91. Since reference 207 does not contain the indicated material, the writer of the phrase is more interested in something else about the sentence I suggest should be changed, than the support for that sentence. No reference appears on the web to the "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works" except in relation to the atomic bomb, reference 207 is not that reference, and as far as I can find, only one book uses the phrase, "Mitsubishi-Urikami Ordnance Works," with another book on WWII apparently referencing that book. For some reason, people are translating the phrase "Mitsubishi-Urikami" as "Torpedo factory." When not translating it that way, it is juxtaposed in separate sentences as if it is a translation, without actually claiming it as a translation. The Urakami is a river. That river is at Nagasaki. As far as I can see, it is not translated into English from Japanese as "torpedo." That word would be "Gyorai". Torpedoes were manufactured at Nagasaki, however, the meaningful and proper reference is to the "Nagasaki Arsenal." "The Nagasaki Arsenal" is referred to in the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, subject, "Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes." The article concerns Japanese torpedoes, their design, manufacture, location of manufacture, worker wages, hours, etc. Nowhere in the document, which specifically documents the manufacture of Japanese torpedoes, including the type 91 in all of its versions, references "Mitsubishi-Urikami". A good deal of the Nagasaki Arsenal was largely destroyed in the blast, but not entirely, estimates range around 78%.

An arsenal manufactures many weapons and weapon components. Singling out torpedoes appears intended as a mental focus, rather than explaining a historical, neutral perspective. Further, if you wanted to declare the bomb was dropped for military reasons, referencing the arsenal is the stronger and more logical choice. Singling out the type 91 and conflating it with Pearl Harbor is done purposely, for the emotional conflation, rather than adoption of a rational or historical position. The type 91 was also manufactured at the Yokusuka arsenal, which was not the target of an atomic bomb. How many type 91s at Pearl Harbor were manufactured by Yokusuka, and how many were manufactured at the Nagasaki arsenal? Maybe none of the torpedoes manufactured at Nagasaki were used at Pearl Harbor, maybe all the aerial torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor were manufactured at Yokusuka, and shipped to the carriers as a production batch. Presumably, other components or munitions manufactured at the Nagasaki arsenal were also used at Pearl Harbor. Use of the conflation between the type 91 and Pearl Harbor appears meaningless to a serious person, anyone who does not derive satisfaction from conflation of the destruction of the city of Nagasaki with the attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor 4 years earlier. What about the bullets that killed Ernie Pyle? What factory made those? Why not nuke that factory? If the reader rejects the previous three sentences referencing Ernie Pyle and the bullet factory, the rejection is likely for the same reasons, that the reference I point to, should be changed. The Ernie Pyle conflation is a ridiculous conflation from a historical perspective, but it is, thematically, the same conflation relating the type 91 torpedo, Pearl Harbor, and the destruction of a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.139.8 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Arial photogaphs of the Hiroshima Nuclear bombing

I recall reading in Richard Rhodes book "The making of the atomic bomb" that the observer aircraft only took still black and white photographs and that there were no moving pictures. I have since see obviously faked cinema film of the Hiroshima bombing in which an aircraft window silhouette had been added along with movement and scratchy lines.

Can anyone conform that there were no original moving pictures of the Hiroshima bombing please? 90.214.160.66 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Supported by: the United Kingdom and ?Canada?

Per WP:BRD I would like to open a discussion on changing the infobox to have the United Kingdom listed as supporting the bombings rather than being a belligerent. I initially made this edit which was reverted by Hawkeye7. While looking through the archive related discussions about the inclusion of the United Kingdom have taken place such as this 2012 discussion and this 2013 discussion. These discussion though have focused on the idea that the UK should not be listed at all. I however believe the UK should still be included. No RAF or other British aircraft took part in the bombings, Leonard Cheshire and William Penney observed the bombing of Nagasaki, however being an observer strikes me more as a sign of support rather than participation. Obviously the Manhattan Project was a joint effort, and as has been noted before the Quebec Agreement meant that British permission was also required before using the bombs. Nevertheless I think that permission would suggest support rather than participation. There can be no denying British involvement but this was an American operation carried out by Americans with the British providing no material support. Also as a side note should Canada not be listed as well as they were also part of the Combined Policy Committee and per the Statute of Westminster 1931 were self-governing? Ebonelm (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The observers were not merely spectators. They had important roles in collecting data in the blast. Most of the observers are more notable that the aircrew. Of course the British observers were also there to fly the British flag. The British government wanted to be seen as a participant, and Truman did not want it to be thought that the US was going alone. There was material support however. The Silverplate B-29s that flew the missions incorporated bomb release mechanisms supplied by Britain. American bomb releases could not handle the weight of the Fat Man bomb. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits on lede

Am trying to distill language to facts. I understand there are issues. For example "not an improvement" is not a helpful explanation. In what way? which particular edit? Juan Riley (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My objection wasn't to the information itself, just how it was written. I just edited it to cleanup the issues I took issue with (using Truman instead of Harry S. Truman, unneeded ellipsis etc.) Calidum T|C 23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah...was it my lazy reference to Truman that was "not an improvement"? And indeed "Detonate" might be a less ambiguous term than "test"...though you did not seem to have a problem with the previous "device" instead of "bomb". Perhaps you should not just lazily revert edits before trying to improve them? Juan Riley (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
While I have no objection to "bomb", some editors felt this implied something dropped from an airplane, which was not the case at Trinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I felt that way too, that is I don't see "device" as a euphemism when it's applied to Trinity, but OTOH it was testing something that would be dropped from a plane so really either works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"Some" editors should then have their heads examined....politically incorrect..okay...some editors should stop having an arcane POV..is that better? Juan Riley (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't sound like a native speaker of English. Post your suggested wording here first and we can discuss it . Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Laughing....I am not gonna take that bait..had a beauty but I shall assume good faith. (A) Is it important (i.e., read that as notable enough to be in the lede) that the defeat of Germany was formally finalized by a surrender agreement? Is it perhaps a wee bit (sarcasm intended) more notable to this article and Japan's pre-invasion situation in late July of '45 that the final defeat of Germany was the result of Allied armies invading die mutter land and wreaking havoc and destruction? That is what I had attempted to insert....with a bit more neutrality in my choice of words. Note that you have left my edits such that Japan was then "facing" having to sign a surrender agreement. Oh my! they must have been scared. Nice job! (B) Who on God's good earth would send an atomic bomb on a craft, in a formation, and with a crew that was NOT "specifically trained and equipped for the task"? If you can't see that at least some of that is not unnecessary detail to include in the lede of this article....I wonder not about your native language but your logic. Juan Riley (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. The use of phrases like "more notable to this article" makes it obvious than you are not a native speaker.
  2. The term "Allied" is ambiguous here, as the reader may not be certain that it includes the Soviet Union.
  3. The defeat of Germany was not due to devastation, but to the defeat of its armies in the field.
  4. Because atomic weapons are much smaller and easier to maintain today, you don't need specially modified aircraft, so without reading the Silverplate article, many readers would not be aware of what needed to be done nor why. They do teach crews the correct mission profile, which is somewhat different to the procedure used in 1945.
  5. The bombers were not flying in formation.
Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7 You amuse me. Do you have a job? Since you wish to revert without discussion, to quibble here on points which have nothing to do with our disagreement on the article lede, and to make silly ad hominem comments what am I to do but laugh at you? I don't edit war. Juan Riley (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015

In the "Atomic bomb development" section the sentence "Progress was slow until the arrival of the British MAUD Committee report in late 1941 which indicated that only 5–10 kilograms, and not 500 tons, of fissile uranium was needed." is not grammatically correct. It should just be "indicated", not "which indicated"

"The arrival of the report which indicated..." vs "The arrival of the report indicated..."

Or maybe it just needs a comma? "The arrival of the report, which indicated ..." 174.44.87.50 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Done added a comma Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on Infobox inclusion

The question is whether UK inclusion in the infobox is based on contribution to nuclear bomb development (in which case one can argue that Canada should be included also) or on the decision(s) whether, when, and where to use said bombs? In the latter case (correct me if I am wrong) neither the UK nor Canada played a significant part--in which case neither should be included in the infobox...or tagged for responsibility for said bombing (as at least public understanding has it). Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many countries were involved in the development of the atomic bomb (with particularly notable contributions from Denmark's Niels Bohr and Australia's Mark Oliphant), but only the US, UK and Canada participated in the control of the project through the Combined Policy Committee. The infobox is based partly on the latter case; the British involvement in the the decisions whether (under the Quebec Agreement atomic bombs could only be used with British approval), and where (Penney represented the British government on the target committee) to use the bombs, but also on the actual participation of the two British representatives in the atomic missions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info/answer. Juan Riley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there documentation of actual UK consent per the Quebec Agreement? Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Catching up on some of this..sorry for silly questions. Yup they consented. Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

The article gives a figure of 1.25 million US casualties. This is in contrast to a different wikiepdia article World_War_II_casualties. At least a Citation Needed should be added to the 1.25 million casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.71.214 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

☒N Already cited. I don't see any contraction with the other article either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

War Crimes

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article's content, and not to express personal opinions on the rights and wrongs of the bombings Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to be brave, might it not change:'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' to read: 'War Crimes'?

(P.S: Should interesting to consider the 'reasoning' of people that reject/attack this suggestion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.126.26 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

☒N We already have an article on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
War crimes in the sense of what? The Nanking Massacre, the Three Alls Policy in China, Bataan Death March, the eating of live prisoners, death railway, Unit 731, slavery etc etc etc. PS it's interesting to trying to understand the mentality of the apologists who portray the Japanese people as innocent victims. It's always been a mystery to me why they never targeted Tokyo? Took the head of the snake by killing Hirohito, Tojo et al along with the rest of the militaristic establishment. Instead the Yanks - against the wishes of Churchill and Stalin - made peace with the same administration that conducted the war. And so the legacy remains, Abe's own father was a minister in the wartime Japanese government. Could you imagine the furore if there was a Willy (Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler or Goering) as chancellor of a united Germany? Japan was never reconstructed after the war thanks to American short-term interests coming before long-term outlook. Thanks to that there is now a Japan where denial of its war crime is accepted. Nanking and the Comfort women never happened. Abe's denial that Japanese soldiers raped Korean women on an industrial scale and Right wing nationalists openly stating their racist views. Yet juxtapose these people and their views against those who proclaim Holocaust denial and you see the disparity. Apologists make me puke. Japan got what it deserved (and got off lightly in my book). "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind".81.132.174.64 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Nanking Massacre and Bataan Death March are nothing compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing.

50.174.10.195 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Check out the international debate around this issue. While calling the US Atomic bombings of Japan a war crime might be considered a Point Of View, how can such an opinion be considered "personal"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.106.234 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Numbers dead

Before you start shooting me in the back, yes I know the words "at least" and estimation sentences were used, but it reads very strange to me that in the lead it says: "129.000 deaths" and that when reading further the deathtoll for just one city has an upper limit of 149.000, surely we should be able to paint a more clearer picture of the actual deathtoll no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede is misleading

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Japan surrendered because of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria on 9th August 1945. (92.15.207.41 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

No, even Japanese documents indicate that was (at most) a trivial concern. The Emperor of Japan (Hirihito) saw that the Americans were a great threat to his country and therefore issued the unconditional surrender. He was almost assassinated for it, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The Soviet entry into the Pacific War was the reason for Japan's unconditional surrender because it removed their final remaining hope of negotiating a surrender with the Allies. The Americans were no threat whatsoever to Japan, but the Soviets were. Stalin intended to permanently divide Japan like Korea, and execute the Emperor and every member of the Imperial Royal Family. The atomic bombings had no effect at all on Japan surrendering. (JamesClydebank (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC))
That's your opinion. Hundreds of scholars and historians disagree with you. You're welcome to write up a few papers pushing your theory and get them published in peer-reviewed journals. Then, perhaps, we can include your theory here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

War crime

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article should mention that bombing civilian cities like Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a war crime. The Japanese only bombed a naval base at Pearl Harbor which was clearly not a war crime. (JamesClydebank (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

Hi, though the bombings are considered war crimes by some, I don't think that view is universal enough for Wikipedia to call them that. The whole thing is discussed in depth here: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Bombings as war crimes. (On another note, the bombing of Pearl Harbor is far from the only thing Japan did.) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the article, as a position put forward by some. See here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
International law about aerial warfare was not established until the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (largely a reaction to the unimaginable savagery seen in WW2), so the bombings were not a war crime by the agreements about what was allowable wartime conduct held by all parties in 1945. This also prevented Japanese airmen from being prosecuted as war criminals during the Tokyo Trials for killing civilians from the air. As for Pearl Harbor being "clearly not a war crime," to the contrary, it was classified as a war crime during the Tokyo Trials precisely because it violated the Hague Convention of 1907 on Initiation of Hostilities (attacking a neutral country without notification of a declaration of war). Looking back through history at barbaric warfare with our modern 21st century sensibilities, we must resist the temptation to re-label their "savage acts" as "war crimes" when they had not contravened the laws of war agreed to internationally in that era. Loresayer (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

While "atomic bomb" is the favored term, it's inaccurate. All "atomic bombs" are actually nuclear bombs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easysqueezy (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of nuclear weapons in warfare

This statement is partially inaccurate, as Depleted uranium was and still used in wars:

"The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.200.249 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Korean survivors" section update request

Please change these sentences from

About 20,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and another 2,000 died in Nagasaki. Perhaps one in seven of the Hiroshima victims were of Korean ancestry.

to:

Between 40,000 and 50,000 Koreans were killed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.[1]

thanks, 209.6.229.194 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sang-Hun, Choe (May 25, 2016). "Korean Survivors of Atomic Bombs Renew Fight for Recognition, and Apology". The New York Times.
Done -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Manchuria

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on 9 August 1945 was a major factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender, as the Soviets quickly drove their forces back into Korea. (165.120.240.20 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC))

The article does discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to invasion

It's widely believed there would not have been an invasion of Japan. The Allies would have imposed a naval blockade to starve the country into unconditional surrender. (217.35.237.134 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC))

The Allies had already imposed a naval and air blockade, but there was no intention to wait. The invasion was underway, and unless the Japanese surrendered, the soldiers and marines would have landed on the beaches on Kyushu on 1 November 1945. For a counter-factual discussion of possible alternate strategies, see Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

|}

does the fact that japan wanted peace before hiroshima but not in the terms of the Potsdam conference deserve a mention?

http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war5.htm 12:24 7/6/2016

I am unsure how the source you linked to backs the premise. Could you provide a quote from the source that you think most strongly makes this point? In any case, I think this source in particular is probably not sufficiently reliable, and if this is the only source making such claims/analysis it would like fall into WP:UNDO or WP:FRINGE. If however similar analysis can be found in a number of sources, this could possibly be worth a brief mention. But as I said initially, I am not actually clear on what you are proposing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Japan had already agreed to surrender on conditional terms. (217.35.237.134 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC))
On the basis that Japan would not be occupied or disarmed, and would remain in possession of Korea, Manchuria and parts of China. There was no chance that the Allies (particularly China) would accept such conditional terms. See Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Note that Alperovitz' claims are not accepted by the current generation of historians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

|}

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016


172.75.51.18 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) should be changed to Decisive Allied Victory

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Trolling by banned editor User:HarveyCarter. Please ignore or revert any further similar posts. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Article Quality

I have rad a lot of Wikipedia articles. I found this one to be well organized, and well written. My compliments to the authors.Carmaskid (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your comment and add my compliments to yours, with your permission. The article is clear, factual, neutral and well organized. Allow me only to find the epigraph for section 11 (Debate), by H. Stimson, not so appropriate for that section. It does not sum up (at least at first sight) the debate nor even the alleged justification of the bombings. I for one, would remove it from where it currently is.--Ian K.W. 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There was to be no invasion

The Allies were never going to invade Japan in the autumn as a naval blockade would have forced Japan to surrender long before then. (Snmkl,l;;sdderfr (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

Tell that to the American military leaders including General Douglas MacArthur who were planning a huge invasion. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The invasion was never going to happen as a naval blockade would have starved Japan into unconditional surrender within weeks. I have written extensively on the subject. (Snmkl,l;;sdderfr (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
There was no mass starvation in August 1945, and the invasion was just ten weeks away. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
As a group of islands Japan was entirely dependent on imports and food was already fast running out. The naval blockade would have forced Japan to surrender before the autumn, when the proposed invasion was due. If Operation Starvation had been started earlier in 1945, Japan would have had to surrender when Germany did. (Snmkl,l;;sdderfr (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC))
Your assertion is proven wrong by evidence, given the huge planning effort that was underway, the meetings in government and military leadership, the signals passing between the US and UK, and the movement of European units to the Pacific to prepare for invasion. It doesn't really matter that Japan could have been starved by naval blockade if other methods of victory were being pushed ahead. Japan also could have been bombed into submission, according to the US Bombing Survey, which is dubious. None of this matters because a land invasion was in the works.
The other critical piece of your assertion is that Japan would have surrendered from blockade alone. There are zero reliable sources saying so. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The original poster here is likely long-running ban evader and troll HarveyCarter. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Deaths by day after explosion

I am trying to find the source of the following statement from the intro section of this article, "roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day," because it seems to conflict with other sources. This AtomicBombMuseum.org states "Most persons close to ground zero who received high radiation dosages died immediately or during the first day. One-third of all fatalities occurred by the 4th day; two-thirds by the 10th day; and 90% by the end of three weeks." [1] , which apprently comes from the book The Impact of the A-Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilhalloran (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml
  2. ^ The Impact of the A-Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945-85. Iwanami Shoten, Publishers, Tokyo, 1985.

Casualty ratio on Okinawa

I notice an inconsistency between this article, which says

Along the way, the ratio of Japanese to American casualties dropped from 5:1 in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa.

and the Battle of Okinawa article, which says that Japanese fatalities were

From 77,166 killed[14] to 110,000 killed (U.S. Estimate)

vs. the American figure of

20,195 dead

I presume the figures in this article were meant to show that the Japanese were becoming more effective fighters as American forces approached Japan, which would mean that an American invasion of Japan would result in an exceptionally high number of casualties.

I don't have access to the reference cited in this article for the 2:1 ratio (Giangreco's "Hell to Pay"), but I'd lay odds that it isn't so far off from the sources behind the more specific figures in the Okinawa article. (And also note that the Wright/Shockley estimates suggested a 12.5:1 ratio for the proposed invasion of Japan, so the claimed trend wasn't considered relevant at the time either.) Maybe an explanation lies in the difference between casualties (including injuries) and fatalities, but maybe not.

If someone has that book, please figure out if one or both of these articles needs to be corrected. Thanks. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any inconsistency. American battle casualties on Okinawa (per Appleman et al., p. 473) were 49,151 (of whom 12,520 were dead). Japanese losses were estimated at 110,000 dead and 7,400 taken prisoner. That's about 2:1. The high casualties were due to terrain favourable to the defence and well-fortified, and a well-led Japanese force in greater strength than anticipated. Although this wasn't known in August 1945, these factors would have also been true on Kyushu. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, those numbers are different than the ones in the Okinawa article, so please give some thought to whether you should update that article. But more importantly, interpreting those numbers as showing a 2:1 ratio requires equating Japanese deaths with American injuries, which does not seem legitimate. The Japanese were almost completely wiped out, dying at a rate over 8 times faster (by the Appleman et al. numbers) than American forces.
This doesn't say to me that the Japanese forces on Okinawa were fighting particularly effectively, or more effectively than Japanese forces elsewhere, which is the apparent intent of the "dropped from 5:1 in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa" line in this article.
I'd still like to hear from anyone with a copy of Giangreco's book to see if it's really making this claim, or if someone here is just interpreting it that way. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Giangreco says (p.49):

The Japanese defenders of Okinawa were inflicting casualties on US combat units at a rate that was both faster and higher than in previous campaigns. The ratios of only 4.6 and 5 Japanese casualties (usually deaths) for every 1 American battle casualty during the recent fighting on Leyte and Luzon respectively were far closer than what had been experienced during earlier Southwest Pacific operations . By Okinawa, the ratio had shrunk to 2 to 1 and an even more appalling 1.25 to 1 during the brutal fighting that had finally sputtered top an end on Iwo Jima.

American casualty figures in the Battle Okinawa article should be drawn from Appleman et al. Note that Giangreco is explicitly describing the American perspective in June 1945. The actual situation was worse than thought, because there were only 77,000 Japanese defenders on Okinawa. As Appleman et al. point out, the Japanese body count was exaggerated by errors in counting the dead, and miscounting Okinawan civilians as Japanese soldiers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, at least now I know what Giangreco said. I think he's selectively and misleadingly picking the statistics he quotes because he has an axe to grind, but this article isn't the place for that debate, so I'll leave it alone. :-) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jersey number

I have removed the text about the Jersey number. The passage is about the fact that reliable sources published in the decade after the war gave the wrong aircraft as being involved in the mission. I have removed the reference to the player's jersey number, preserving the key point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should really include a paragraph on the ins and outs of how the wrong aircraft was named, when 1 line would suffice. Early reports confused the name of the plane but the crewmen have rectified the confusion over the years. Your paragraph is good but it really is material far better to have in the dedicated articles on the planes in question.
Boundarylayer (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Altitude of explosion

Text does not specify whether explosion heights given are above land surface or sea level. This needs to be explicitly stated. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Above land, the last time I checked. It wouln't make much sense to triangulate the detonation point(or more specifically, the peak brightness point) by extrapolating backwards from the permanent ablation markings that were caused by shadowing material, only to then try and introduce a complication by "correcting" everything to sea level. Although sometimes fellow scientists are very pedantic, so it is conceivable that some did report their findings in distance units from sea level. Why don't you read the references that are attached? Aren't they in the public domain and detail how the 3 ways the heights were computed?
Boundarylayer (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I worked on the blast height problem back in March 2014.[4] The best sources I could find were John Malik in 1985 and George D. Kerr in 2005. Both of these authors evaluated the 1969 report by Hubbell et al along with other reports. There is uncertainty about the exact blast heights, but we should tell the reader what are the best estimates.
Both bombs had radar fuzes which bounced radio waves off of the ground, or possibly off of the tops of buildings. The bomb blast heights are usually discussed as above-ground heights, not absolute sea level altitudes. I don't know the exact altitude of the ground at each hypocenter, but the city center of Hiroshima is listed as 177 feet above sea level, while Nagasaki is 118 feet. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_22&oldid=1136536849"