# Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

"The Target Committee nominated five targets:" should be The "Target Committee nominated five targets in order of priority:".  This should then be followed by the targets as originally designated in order: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, with Niigata as an alternate.  Then discuss Stimson's succesful removal of Kyoto.  Then name the target list in order of priority prior to the actual Hiroshima bombing, namely: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, Nagasaki.  For all, reference Downfall by Richard B. Frank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.180.170 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC) 

Have you got a page number. I don't recall these being the priority order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct the error.
"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946."
to 
Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan, Lieutenant colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The  U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
80 years ago, the Japanese were the most hated people in America, stripped of all their possessions and locked up in camps.  Today they are highly respected and welcome to live anywhere they want, and they achieved this distinction through hard work, not by burning their neighborhoods, looting, and acts of violence. Philbundy (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Can you show vedios 102.129.165.76 (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Sure can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. this article ). I think this is something that should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, that was a pretty important, but often left out detail of the bombings, not to mention the degloving, mutilation, and the ant walkers. it might be too sensitive or biased to include the genuinely horrible things that happened on the ground,but wording it right might help with that. however I'm bad at writing whole subjects and also citing and researching. cheers tho! <3 Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I cant edit but can someone change the date to “6th and 9th of august, 1945. Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Doing so would violate Wikipedia's manual of style; we do not use ordinals.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok just wanted to know Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
grammar 100.16.162.233 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The Cairns Post of Queensland, Australia reports the discovery of “radioactive pitchblende, a source of atomic power” on page 1 of the edition of Thu 7 Oct 1948.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/title/61
Wide security probe ordered, press correspondents to be questioned, death penalty for treason, U.S. born Japanese convicted, in other headlines of the same issue. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The uranium used by the Manhattan Project came from the Congo, Canada, United States and Czechoslovakia. See the table below for details. After the war there was a rush to find new sources of uranium. In April 1948, the government offered a reward of £25,000 for the discovery of uranium ore in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

In the 3rd paragraph, "a Little Boy" should be "Little Boy", removing "a" StrukiTru (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Been resolved. Don't mind this. Wasn't aware they were types of bombs instead of names. StrukiTru (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Marked as answered PianoDan (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The redirect 'Two Suns of Japan' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 27 § 'Two Suns of Japan' until a consensus is reached.  Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In Bombing of Hiroshima, the reported distance from the bomb is phisically impossible, thus the archive story from the Department of Energy must have it wrong. I propose to quote the archive with a warning. The B-29 dropped the bomb from 11,000 ft (3.4 km), which exploded 53 seconds later at 580 m; in 53 seconds the bomber could at the maximum operating speed of 560 Km/h fly 8.2 km at most. Pythagoras theorem gives us a distance of at most 8.9 km (8.8 if one subtracts the height of the explosion), less than half of what reported. It's possible that it was a typo by whomever typed that DoE historical archive.--Gciriani (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The passage says Enola Gay was 18.5 km (11.5 mi) away before it felt the shock waves from the blast. Doesn't the speed of sound account for the difference? Remsense ‥ 论 15:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
At about 300 m/s 8.9 km take almost 30 s, during which the B-29 would have proceeded another 4.1 km. If one solves the 2nd degree equation for the smaller increments that are added (in Achilles and the turtle fashion), I obtain a total distance of 18.6 km from the explosion.
However, at about 340 m/s, which I should have used in the calculations above at ground level (and the sound of an explosion actually goes a little faster because of the higher compression slightly changing the physics of sound waves), it's 15.7 km. Checking the speed of sound at various altitudes, the average would have been 333 m/s, giving 15.9 km. The archive article states 43 s for the bomb to explode, which would give us 13.1 km. Gciriani (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I wasted your time, because I had used the incorrect height of 11,000 ft instead of 31,000 ft. With this corrections and the average speed of sound of 317 m/s the overall calculation gives 17.8 km, which is well within the error from the various flight data. Gciriani (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Not at all! I appreciated the refresher, even if it was a textbook word problem with the most ignominious framing. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
You may want to post something at the Reference Desk? I'm curious too. Remsense ‥ 论 17:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"These targets were chosen because they were large urban areas that also held militarily significant facilities." Are the "militarily significant facilities" the schools and flammable wooden residential structures that the US had been targeting in major Japanese cities at the time because they burned easily? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-28/mapping-urbicide-in-world-war-ii Or, are we talking about the dock in Nagasaki that was left intact and the POW camp that contained British and Dutch soldiers? https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14343022 Or perhaps the Army camp in Hiroshima that the plane flew past and that was not in the destruction zone map as it dropped the bomb on the city center--something discussed as being more important than hitting the fringe military targets in the now released files? https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/61-54   https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/015.pdf 2601:245:C101:96D0:3CB3:1173:469D:56E0 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You can read about the military units in Hiroshima by looking at the section Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Hiroshima during World War II. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a Typo in the Legacy section, "henceforthf" with an additional f at the end. 2A02:8388:E382:9D80:D2E:E43E:BD45:5680 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks for letting us know. Remsense ‥ 论 10:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, but these are quite serious downgrades in diction. Plus, the meaning of this material was changed without the sources being changed to potentially reflect new information. that's not "copyediting" at a bare miniumum  [sic], and it may just be original research replacing sourced material.
Brooks and Jowett statement 1:
On one hand, it has been argued that the bombings caused the Japanese surrender, thereby preventing casualties that an invasion of Japan would have involved.
Brooks and Jowett statement 2:
Use of estimates of casualties prevented has since dominated purported justifications.
"It has been argued" refers to the two sources, which I believe I captured with the word "dominated". Material pretty much unchanged in that respect. The other information is still peppered in the paragraph.. but I admit the last sentence was too ambiguous and disconnected, even though the first sentence mentioned the role of bombings in the surrender. Most importantly, the chronology must be changed, and Stimson's use of combatant casualties must be kept, which @Remsense didn't mention.


### Old
On one hand, it has been argued that the bombings caused the Japanese surrender, thereby preventing casualties that an invasion of Japan would have involved. Stimson talked of saving one million casualties. The naval blockade might have starved the Japanese into submission without an invasion, but this would also have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.


### My old change
From the outset, Stimson claimed in his famous 1947 Harper’s article to have prevented at least one million American forces casualties alone using estimates from a hypothetical invasion of Japan. Use of estimates of casualties prevented has since dominated purported justifications. For the purpose of comparison, use of both the naval blockade and military force short of invasion might have starved out the Japanese without an invasion, but this would have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.


### My new change
From the outset, Stimson claimed in his famous 1947 Harper’s article that the bombings, with the assumption that only they could cause Japan's surrender, had prevented at least one million American forces casualties alone, using estimates from its subsequently avoided hypothetical invasion. Using the same general formula, purported justifications have been since argued for using estimates of casualties prevented. For the purpose of comparison, use of both the naval blockade and military force short of invasion might have starved out the Japanese without said invasion, but this would have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.
I added the url as well. The direct quote, which was already in the article from the beginning (page XXX/30), was Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million U.S. casualties. U.S. was all army at that moment.
All ambiguity gone? Lumbering in thought (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)


### My second new change
in response to @Hawkeye7
The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the United States' justification for them have been the subject of scholarly and popular debate, even within the historical contemporaries' own time. In response to American journalist John Hersey's account of the Hiroshima atomic bombing becoming a media sensation which cast the bombings in a negative light, Stimson and others published their own article "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb". Stimson claimed in his 1947 Harper’s article response that the bombings, with the assumption that they contributed significantly to Japan being forced to surrender, had prevented at least one million American forces casualties alone, using estimates from its subsequently avoided hypothetical invasion. While Japan's "intense military hypernationalism" was strong during the war, at its end it dissipated quickly, and with the public announcement by the emperor of surrender resulting in the numbers of civilians and members of the military dying by suicide comparable to Germany's counterparts at its respective time. For the purpose of comparison, use of both the naval blockade and military force short of invasion might have starved out the Japanese without said invasion, but this would have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.

Comments
"From the outset" is ambiguous. In 1945, Stimson supported the blockade, the invasion and Soviet intervention. There was hope that the bombings might make a difference:
We had developed a weapon of such a revolutionary character that its use against the enemy might well be expected to produce exactly the kind of shock on the Japanese ruling oligarchy which we desired, strengthening the position of those who wished peace, and weakening that of the military party.
There was no "assumption that only they could cause Japan's surrender".
"Famous" is a WP:PEACOCK phrase.
"Using the same general formula" is incorrect, and not supported buy the sources supplied
"purported" is a WP:WEASEL word, and not required here, as it is in fact supported
I would dispute "estimates of casualties prevented has since dominated purported justifications"; there are other arguments too, but this is the one that was to the fore in 1945.
The big mistake a lot of people make is the assumption that the idea was to end the war economically, with the minimum amount of maythem. On the contrary, the practice was to throw everything the Allies had at Japan.
Keep the original. It is more succinct, and more accurate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I remember you, but whatever. Now I've read the Brooks source. I made a new section, adapting many points. Everyone takes exception with giving me credit for anything (the chronology, the combatant info) and is actually offensive when it comes to the benefits to this subject matter. The last argument of "no other choice" seems fringe as well as to take at face value some justification (when the U.S. justification sounds inherently like "according to") in the actual debate section. Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

--- Above unsigned by someone or other

I for one have no idea what you're trying to say. EEng 02:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The source seems to be saying that surrender as an outcome was going to translate to the populace. You can read the source for how there was a connection to the emperor but that delves into too much detail. Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hidenori112, you cannot cite a newspaper to verify claims about what that newspaper itself knew and did not know at that time. You really need secondary sources to corroborate this massive claim, preferably scholarly research from the past 75 years. If there are none, then that would illustrate some of the reasons we don't rely on contemporary newspaper coverage for claims as potentially fraught as this one. Remsense 🌈 论 23:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

See Did the Japanese offer to surrender before Hiroshima? (Part 2), where this is debunked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Para 4 significantly repeats the end of para 3, with para 3 cutting off half way through the repeated quote.
Propose merging these by replacing the partial quote in para 3 with the full quote, citing both sources, and deleting para 4.
I would make the change, but the article is semi-protected.
I would also propose that the section title is changed, as it feels to prosaic for wikipedia. I would suggest, "Opposition to the Bombings" or "Preliminary Opposition to the Bombings". Natalieenord (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Y Deleted the section, which contained several factual errors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The USA were aware of Japan's attempt for contact regarding a surrender. They ignored these attempts as they wanted to use these atomic bombs. In 1973 a documentary called The World At War, narrated by the acclaimed British actor Laurence Olivier, was first aired. As to its making over 50 years ago, not historians, but the actual people in the USA's presidential decision making group were interviewed and revealed what I state. Episode 24 - The Bomb; freely available to be viewed. Martin E Taper (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This has all been debunked many times over. The Japanese conditions - that they continue to occupy China, that Japan not be occupied, no Allied war crimes trials, preservation of the Imperial system - was not acceptable to the Allies. Seeking to use the Soviet Union as an intermediary was also a mistake. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
So you are saying the actual people who were there and were involved in making the decision lied in a documentary in 1973/4? Why would they do that? Watch the documentary and listen to them speak! Martin E Taper (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I have watched it several times! Nothing they say supports what you claim. "When Truman sail to Europe on July the seventh for his meeting with standing on Churchill he knew through intercepted messages that Japan wanted an end to the war but not unconditional surrender. Truman and Byrnes now had several options open to them: they could modify the surrender terms; they could encourage the Russians to invade Manchuria; they could demonstrate the atomic bomb; they could invade Japan itself." (part 1) [In fact, they intended to all all of these things.]
"Later that same morning the Americans dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Killed sixty thousand people but even now the Japanese militants held out for the surrender without an occupation." (part 2) There are errors in the narrative, but nothing they say supports what you claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Well you must have an edited version - a USA revision of history.
I'll watch my original version and give you the transcript of what the actual individuals involved stated. Martin E Taper (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)