Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 8

message: Non-exhaustive list. Please add to it, including off-line references.
* (Peter Kuznick, director of Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington D.C. (see List of American University people)
*Green Left Weekly (about Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden, whom both studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR.
*"Hiroshima, Historians Reassess", in Foreign Policy, Summer 1995
*1995 Peace Declaration from Takashi Hiraoka, Mayor of Hiroshima (he's not even quoted in the article!)
*November 1995 Public Sitting, in the Case of Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflicts (The Hague, International Court of Justice)
**"The dropping of the nuclear weapons is a problem that must be adressed globally. History is written by the victors. Thus, the heinous massacre that was Hiroshima has been handed down to us as a perfectly justified act of war... It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves survivors for decades, is a violation of international law" (Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima)
**"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for decennies to come. I have shown from the above that, with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities, and moreover that the radiation released by these weapons cannot be confined to specific military targets. It can only be said, therefore, that nuclear weapons are inhuman tools for mass slaughter and destruction... The use of nuclear weapons... therefore is a manifest infraction of international law." (Iccho Itoh, Mayor of Nagasaki)
*"The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective", John Bolton (current US ambassador to the United Nations, in 1998): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the International Criminal Court ], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.16 This is intolerable and unacceptable."
*"Penser l'impensable: Massacres & Génocides" by Jacques Sémelin, director of research at the CNRS and professor at Sciences-Po, in Le Monde diplomatique, April 1995 (French, available in Portuguese here)
*"Even worse, the intensive bombings of cities and, more than anything else, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted, in all evidence, war crimes in the sense of the The Hague Convention. And if the bombings of German citis had been provoked by the enemy, with the bombings of London, Coventry and Rotterdam, one couldn't say as much concerning the atomic bomb, unpreceded and all-powerful weapon which existence could have been announced, or even manifestated (demonstrated?), by a lot of other means. Clearly, the most evident reason for which the Allies' violations of The Hague Convention were never discussed on the juridical level is that the international military courts had of international only the name and that they were de facto winners' courts". Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Epilogue, 5th paragraph. That was written in 1963: the debate is nothing new! 
Tazmaniacs 11:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tazmaniacs -- You've done some good research. I haven't read through it all yet, but I'd say that a good addition to the article can probably be distilled from it. Note that "war crimes" is already mentioned in the article once (for the sake of rebutting it) in the "Support" section and again in the "Opposition" section. I removed your reference to war crimes from the introduction, since it stated that it was the general opinion of the public in Japan that the bombings were a war crime. That may well be true, but a source should be given for a statement like that. KarlBunker 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! Thanks for feedback & inclusion in the article. I've included Hannah Arendt, as I don't think she's irrelevant here, and that Eichmann in Jerusalem, although clearly Hiroshima wasn't its principal subject, deals with international law & the question of war crimes and what the mayor of Hiroshima calls "history of the victors". She is far from having extremist views, and her book is a classic of political science. All in all, it just gives more precision to the assertion : "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings", by including a name. I don't think these two proper nouns (Hannah & Arendt) will give undue weight to the opposition's criticisms, nor get the article undue lenght! Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of sources alleging it was a war crime and/or a crime against humanity 

message: I've rewritten this section, although mostly I just rearranged the existing content for (IMO) better organization and clarity. There is some increased emphasis on the terms "war crime" and "crime against humanity", as those terms have often been used by opponents of the bombings. I included a small amount of new material, taking advantage of Tazmaniacs's research above. KarlBunker 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite to "Opposition" section

message: I have removed the unsourced paragraph:
:The use of atomic bombs, due to the effects of the particle radiation, may have made them poisonous weapons under international law in 1945, in which case their use would have been a war crime. Some have argued that Americans should have done more research into the effects of the bomb, including radiation sickness and the terrible burns that followed the explosion.
Because the ICJ made clear in paragraph 55 and 56 of their 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons that "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate. This practice is clear, and the parties to those instruments [(Hague IV and Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925)] have not treated them as referring to nuclear weapons.  In view of this, it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the above-mentioned provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol (see paragraph 54 above)." --Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pacifistic propaganda. The same argument could be used with bullets and heavy metal poisoning. Likewise, any weapon designed to kill that doesn't always kill outright could be said to cause "undue suffering." Oh, but I'm sure these same propagandists will stop complaining when a weapon is developed that has a kill probability of 100%. Haizum 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolling is really quite unnecessary here and there is plenty enough of it as it is from all sides in this. Please knock it off. It does not help you argument and it does not help those of us who actually would like to come up with a good article. --Fastfission 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsourced and biased paragraph was already removed. I'm merely commending that action, so an accusation of trolling is clearly unwarranted. Pipe down, shall we? Haizum 02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're trolling -- posting little rants about "pacificist propaganda" and making sarcastic comments about what you presume people to think or believe is not just "commending" an action. It doesn't help anything and we have plenty of it already. So just knock it off. --Fastfission 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can deduce what a person thinks when they use fallacious logic. Sure, I spiced it up a little, but the same argument could be used with bullets and heavy metal poisoning. Likewise, any weapon designed to kill that doesn't always kill outright could be said to cause "undue suffering," is still applicable. Haizum 05:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: poisonous weapon

message: "This page is 149 kilobytes long." I'll make a new archive page of the discussions from early March, which are apparently no longer active. Does anyone want any of them kept on this page? Casualties? Radiation sickness? Soviet invasion? Obviously these subjects haven't been settled for good and all...
—wwoods 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 7 

message: I'm pleased to see that someone had the courage to delete this noxious section, and I'm sorry to see it reverted. Why don't we call the section "Trivia" and be honest about it? Maybe we can even come up with some sick jokes to round it out and give it the right tone. Cultural! (Dr Atomic is cultural, I suppose, but perhaps to include an opera would lift the level of discussion too high?)  --Cubdriver 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't understand the point of your diatribe. The bombings have had a profound influence on culture, as have nuclear weapons in general. To ignore that fact would be to leave the article incomplete. I think the Cultural notes section could stand a lot of improvement, but I don't see anything noxious about its current state. KarlBunker 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do have a Nuclear weapons in popular culture article we could shuttle that off to if one wanted to streamline this article. --Fastfission 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing wrong with the cultural notes, I agree with Karl. --A Sunshade Lust 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "cultural" notes

message: In view of the chronic vandalism, I'm thinking about semi-protecting this article. Any opinions?
—wwoods 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be semi-protected, this article is a major vandalism target. I don't mind Jaranda wat's sup 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely; please do! KarlBunker 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: I suggest changing all instances of the widespread but incorrect "atomic" to the correct "nuclear," except in book titles and so forth. All nations possess atomic bombs; we typically call them chemical bombs. They release energy by rearranging atoms. The bombs detonated above Hiroshima and Nagasaki released energy by rearranging nucleons. Hence, they were nuclear bombs. Thoughts? 199.90.6.26 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Atomic bomb" is correct and standard usage. Conventional (chemical) explosions release energy by "rearranging" molecules (molecular reactions). Atomic bombs release energy via fission ("splitting" atoms). Thermonuclear bombs (aka hydrogen bombs) release energy by triggering a fusion reaction (fusing of hydrogen atoms) using the heat from an initial fission reaction. "Nuclear" is a broader term that includes both fission and fission+fusion weapons. --Toms2866 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In most common speech, "Nuclear" is used with "weapons" and "atomic" with "bombs", the latter especially when referring to specifically fission-based weapons. When talking about a historical even in particular, though, "atomic" is generally favored. "Atomic bomb" was how the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were framed by the participants (to the irritation of a number of the scientists, who did agree that "atomic" did not specify specifically that one is talking about nuclear reactions), and the phrase "atomic bombing of Hiroshima" is far, far, more prevalent in English than the phrase "Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima". You'll notice though that our first sentence refers to what was dropped in the more precise terminology, though. I don't think it's worth losing sleep over either way -- the current version is fine to my ear. --Fastfission 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: What's with this cat? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied war crimes cat?

message: When you click the picture that shows the aftermath of the bombing, it links to a different picture.  How and why?  And you can also see some logo ("National Library of Medicine," I think) shining through.--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath Picture 

message: The link to the Truman speech now directs to an archive of MLK Jr. videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.82.177 (talk • contribs).
: 71.112.82.177 is right, and the only working source I could find for this audio was this, which has only 25 seconds of the speech, and is preceded by a commercial that's longer than the valid content. Consequently, I've removed the link from the article. KarlBunker 10:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Truman speech link

message: I have seen the reference from the Article that leaflets were dropped BEFORE Hiroshima.
please elaborate.
how many days, what was the full content of the leaflets?
"U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who was unaware of the Manhattan Project until Franklin Roosevelt's death, made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender. On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan:
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland..." 
"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." 
The next day, Japanese papers reported that the declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped on leaflets into Japan, had been rejected. The atomic bomb was still a highly guarded secret and not mentioned in the declaration."
...please note the last line....  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.107.88 (talk • contribs).
:It seems to be saying only that the statement of the Potsdam Declaration was dropped on Japan in leaflets. There were many leafletting campaigns against Japan before Hiroshima, but they didn't warn about atomic bombgs. (See, i.e. :Image:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg). --Fastfission 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaflets Dropped Before Hiroshima 

message: What's the existing rate of fallout for the cities? I mean, if Chernobyl supposedly will take hundreds of years to recover from, is it the midair explosion that disperses most of the fallout, or something? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: "Although the levels of residual radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose received from background radiation. Hence, there is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation on human health." Follow the link for a longer answer, with a comparison to Chernobyl. —wwoods 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, so it was gamma radiation that caused the primary radiation poisoning effects and that's why secondary ionisation doesn't seem so prominent? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  existing fallout 

message: There is a sentence, toward the beginning of the article, which reads:
"the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50–150,000 civilian deaths, 100–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths"
I read this as: between 50 and 150,000 civilian deaths, and between 100 and 125,000 military deaths.  That is quite a range.  I imagine the intended range is between 50,000 and 150,000, then 100,000 and 125,000.  It is not appropriate to abbreviate in this fashion, should this be the case, as it is thoroughly confusing.  I'm not going to make changes until someone clarifies.—Kbolino
:The meaning of the abbreviations was obvious, but I've corrected them anyway. KarlBunker 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I've moved this article up to "Top"; I think this is one of those cases where you'd be shocked if a random person didn't recognize it. Kirill Lokshin 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I should note that the inclusion of this article as a project of the "Military History" group is disturbing.  Most military historians are not especially noted for their objectivity or academic rigor.  This is especially an issue in something as complicated as the nuclear bombings.  There should be a bias alert posted on this article to deal with such concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.148.2.238 (talk • contribs) .
:"Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject."  Do you not agree with this statement?  Do you not see the correlation between the documentation of military history and the documentation of the bombing of Japan during the Second World War?  If you do agree that the bombings were a part of WWII, carried out by military personnel, then I don't see why it should prove so disturbing.  You've made very broad characterizations about the editors working within the MilHist project (I'm assuming we fall within your definition of "most military historians"), something I don't feel we deserve.  We have gone to great lengths to maintain NPOV in the articles we contribute to. If you disagree, please point out specific examples and they will be given immediate attention.  Please try not to allow your personal bias to interfere with your contributions and ability to work with other groups of people within the Wikipedia organization.  We will do the same.  Many thanks. --ScreaminEagle 16:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being part of a Wikipedia Wikiproject doesn't necessarily mean very much (anybody can sign up for them, and it doesn't necessarily reflect a certain viewpoint or not), and neither does having an article labeled as within their scope (it doesn't mean that anyone will actually pay any more attention to it), and in any case, such a labeling certainly has no effect on whether the content will be biased or not. If you have actual bias concerns with the content, bring those up, but don't disparage based on something as silly as this. --Fastfission 22:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Along this same line, this article needs to be reorganized.  It wasn't an isolated event, it was the culmination of a military campaign by the Allies against Japan beginning with the initiation of formal hostilities with the Attack on Pearl Harbor.  Therefore, the article should be organized like:
* Intro
* Background
*Action
**Prelude
**Bombing of Hiroshima
**Bombing of Nagasaki
*Aftermath
*Subsequent opinion and debate on the bombings
Something like that so that the article will be in the generally utilized format for presenting military history topics.  It was a military event and should be presented as one.  All of the discussion about the long term effects on survivors, etc may need to be placed in a separate article like the Hibakusha article if the "aftermath" section becomes unwieldy.  I'm sure this has been discussed before in prior, archived discussion pages, but it doesn't seem like anything's been done about it.  I'll eventually get to this article, but I currently have others much higher on my "to do" list. Cla68 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military History Project? 

message: There are two pictures of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall / "Peace Dome" in this article.  Should the captions be merged and one of the pictures deleted?  Arx Fortis 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two pictures of the same thing 

message: I remember something about how some curators at the Smithsonian got into serious trouble for an exhibit about the bombings. Does anyone have any info on that? I think it would make a perfect footnote to this article. Wandering Star 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is stopping you from adding it--go for it!  Asking others to add information to an article almost never works. Travb (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have information on that at the Enola Gay article which might be useful as a base, and there are some links there to sites about the controversy. --Fastfission 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upon Reflection

message: I would like to suggest moving the 1st 2 factors or arguments under 7.2 'opposition' to 7, before the pro 7.1 and con 7.2, and add discussion of the strategic decison itself:  That the decision of the US to use the bomb was to demonstrate to the USSR that US had the bomb, and would use it.  The immediate threat from Japan was already gone, and the future threat to the US was from the USSR in both Europe, and in Manchuria and Japan.  This stopped the USSR advancement, more important than accelerateing Japan's surrender.  Comment? Reference? Bcameron54 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there some earlier discussion about merging text from the support/opposition sections into subsections? I can't seem to find it in the archives.EricR 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sec 7 debate on bombings 

message: Wow, whoever did that first paragraph about State Sponsored Terrorism comes off as vehemently anti-american. Not a good look for Wikipedia especially on the page of such a controversial moment in history. There is no mention in that paragraph of the Japaneses will to fight to the last man, and the State Sponsored Terrorism Wiki defines the phrase of having no agreed upon definition, which is a contradiction. WWII was a horrible war, all sides employed methods of terror to help the war effort. This sentence needs to be removed. Curiosity998 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph?