Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 9

message: The very opening lines of the Opposition section (after the numbered points) were support arguments! I've removed them, since they have already been mentioned and don't belong there, but please keep things in their correct places.--Now might i do it pat 05:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening of the Opposition section 

message: As this article showed the events only from one side, I added facts about the position of the Japanese government and the Emperor.
--Flying tiger 20:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some further edits to incorporate the above edits into the article a little better. I also removed two quotes of Hirohito's: It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped, and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima. But it could not be helped because that happened in wartime".  -- I removed this because I thought it was rather content-free; like all good modern monarchs, Hirohito was making polite sounds but not saying anything. And this paragraph: On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, prince Asaka then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "of course" -- I removed because it doesn't reflect what actually happened, so it's a little confusing. KarlBunker 02:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Japanese side 

message: I added this:
:"U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition."
I deleted this:
:"Alperovitz argues that the sole issue hindering Japanese surrender was U.S. demand for unconditional surrender. When Japan asked that it be allowed to keep its emperor, the U.S. refused and proceeded with the atomic bombing. After its unconditional surrender, Japan was permitted to keep its emperor."
It's far from that simple. For instance, Byrnes was fairly obsessed with impressing (or frightening) the Soviets, & Truman was deeply beholden to him.  Trekphiler 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (13) 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.
Not the Debellation of the Japanese state which would only happen if the armed forces did not surrender before that happened (second sentence of paragraph 13). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditional surrender

message: The article refers to three pre-assemblies available for the Nagasaki mission. Were these all armed atomic devices or was there a single atomic warhead that was installed in the pre-assembly? 24.13.213.231 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Closer to the latter than the former. For an atomic bomb to work you need fissile material which is assembled in such a way to make the nuclear explosion. A pre-assembly in this context almost certainly means that they had the devices ready to assemble the fissile material, but lacked the fissile material itself for three bombs. --Fastfission 23:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the pre-assemblies?

message: I have added the full, correct quote and removed 'cite sources' tag.
It would be good if everyone interested to read the whole interview, from someone at the heart of the controversy,  here: 
--Cybersquire 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leo Szilard Quote on Atomic Bombings of Cities

message: Genocide is not mentioned anywhere on this page. 8 thousand killed is considered "Genocide" in Srebrenica, for example, but 500,000 dead Japanese civilians is not? Says something about the censoring of American history.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  58.163.134.115 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly hope you are not trying to say that 500,000 Japanese people died as a result of the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima (If not this is the wrong page for this critique) Anyway in the context of total war (which was occuring just as much in Europe) for example Dresdan or any of the major battles on the Eastern Front civillians are going to die. Japan had a relatively small number of civillians die in the context of those lost by the USSR or even Germany. If the United States really wanted to commit genocide an invasion of the main island would have probably resulted in more deaths. They also had a blockade around Japan so they could have just as easily starved them to death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  130.86.14.40 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is a result of confusion of the terms "genocide" and "mass murder". cyclosarin 12:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Genocide is about motivation, not numbers. --Fastfission 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide not mentioned 

message: Just went through it, and I couldn't find a single thing wrong or missing. Why not nominate for Featured Article status? :) Mathiemood 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an exceptionally good article 

message: In reading the opposition/support section, it appeared that the layout draws attention to the opposition arguments, for example the individual headers for the different arguments.  The format itself seems biased (and yes I know this sounds silly) but I really think it should be adjusted.  The format should be the same for both sections, and currently it isn't.
:That's pretty typical for Wikipedia. The anti-American sections are always given so much more attention. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition section layout 

message: Currently all it says in the article about the decision to drop the bomb is:
:"U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who was unaware of the Manhattan Project until Franklin Roosevelt's death, made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan."
I'm sure Truman had lengthy discussions with various people before he made his decision. Who did he discuss it with? Did anyone voice any opposition to dropping the bombs?--Moonlight Mile 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all of your POV you forgot to ask, "did anyone voice overwhelming support for dropping the bombs?" --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 04:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision to drop the bomb