Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

POV lead

Hi. I apologise about potentially creating a contentious discussion, but I wonder if this part of the current text of the page is biased towards the US leadership's official justification for why the bombs were dropped on the particular targets. Look at this text (emphasis mine):

On August 6, the B-29 Enola Gay dropped a Little Boy on Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters. Three days later, to take advantage of favorable weather, the B-29 Bockscar dropped a Fat Man on Nagasaki, a major military port, one of Japan's largest shipbuilding and repair centers, and an important producer of naval ordnance. Over the next two to four months, the effects of the atomic bombings killed between 90,000 and 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000 and 80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half occurred on the first day. For months afterward, large numbers of people continued to die from the effects of burns, radiation sickness, and injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition. Most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable military garrison.

I have bolded the clauses used to introduce Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I assume this bolded text is accurate and proportionate, but what concerns me is the lack of counterweight. As is, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are introduced to the reader almost purely by reference to the military presence in those cities. In other words, it closely reflects the framing that Truman (for example) seemed to want, i.e. that the targets hit were mainly of a military nature. However, the accuracy of this framing is one of main points of controversy about the bombings. The bombings were aimed at the centre of cities, not at isolated military bases, and the vast majority of people killed were civilians.

Assuming again that these clauses are accurate and proportionate, I don't necessarily think they should be removed. But it may be good to also explain the cities' significance in non-military terms with similar prominence. Otherwise, the text may, perhaps unintentionally, create a biased framing.

Thanks! —ajf (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That has always struck me as odd as well; the wording leans towards justifying the bombings from the US POV. A more neutral wording might focus on the bombings themselves and the effects thereof. Netherzone (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the most common questions people ask about the bombing is why the two cities were selected. It therefore seems appropriate to include the reasons in the lead. The clauses are accurate and proportionate. [1] Neither city was targeted for any other reason. They are introduced as "cities" in the first sentence. The terms "industrial center" and "shipbuilding and repair center" make it clear that they were targeted as such (although Hiroshima was a military base too). There was consideration of bombing Tokyo and Kyoto for other reasons, but they were rejected as targets. The bombing was not targeted at the center of the cities. In the case of Nagasaki, ground zero was midway between Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Nagasaki Arsenal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth pointing out that link you provide also mentions that Hiroshima "is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged", and in general it says "any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage". Anyway, I agree that the clauses seem to at least partly reflect the reasons in that document, but I'm not sure if that makes them neutral. Assuming the purest intentions of the authors of that document, it nonetheless only reflects one particular side's stance. —ajf (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The "one side" won the war and wrote most of the histories, so it would be difficult to overturn the mass of literature. Certainly the five targeted cities were important to the war effort, even if you only counted the civilians working in war industries. The atomic bomb planners knew that lots of civilians would die in the blast, but naming a military target would establish legitimacy. So there you have it: the cities were military targets, defending themselves with anti-aircraft batteries, containing military units, etc. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is biased towards an official US perspective. The section that the lead text is based on is 'Choice of targets'. In that section, the reader is told that "The target [had to be] an important target in a large city" and that "psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized". So, military targets away from major cities could have been chosen, but part of the goal was to cause vast damage to a large city. The conclusion from this is that the first filter in choosing a target was that it had to be a large city; the "embarkation port" ... "major military port" aspects were secondary. In presenting the secondary justification and not the first, we're being biased towards an official US perspective. EddieHugh (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources which support this - e.g. by arguing that the US prioritised attacking cities with the bomb and that military factors were of little importance? When I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in 2008, its displays were pretty frank about the city being home to important military bases and arms production facilities. The Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museum obscured the city's role in the war in its displays when I visited it last year though. Bear in mind as well that the legality of attacking cities and the mindset at the time were totally different than today. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The sources are those given in the article in the section that I mentioned. (I didn't say that "military factors were of little importance", as they don't support that.) EddieHugh (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The current material seems in line with the sources, which note that the key criteria was a large urban centre which was also of considerable importance to the Japanese war effort. If you could suggest other sources and/or specific edits to the current material (backed by sources), it would be very helpful. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As ajf pointed out: highlight the fact that they were picked because they were cities. Having "cities" in the opening line doesn't even imply that this was a reason for their being targeted, so is inadequate. I suggest "... orders were issued on July 25 for atomic bombs to be used against Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki. These targets were chosen because they were major urban centers large urban areas that also held militarily significant facilities. On August 6, a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima; three days later, a Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. Over the next two to four months..." This also corrects the placement of "July 25" (when the orders were issued, not when the bombs were to be used) and removes the fetishistic listing of plane types and names. All of this is supported by the existing sources. EddieHugh (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What's a "major urban center"? Hiroshima had a population of 345,000, including its garrison of 40,000 troops; Nagasaki had a population of 263,000. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "large urban areas", which mirrors the wording of the Target Committee source. EddieHugh (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair warning, after a week with no objections: I intend to add the amended wording that is given above. EddieHugh (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Granticus31 – this is the discussion that I referred to in my edit summary. I don't know why you reverted my edit instead of discussing here, as I suggested (see WP:BRD). The lead wording has been stable for six months, as I stated in another edit summary. It's up to you to get a new consensus for your proposed changes, not for another editor to justify the current consensus again. As such, I suggest that you self-revert and then propose your changes here for further discussion. EddieHugh (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

EddieHugh Forgive me for being inexperienced with wikipedia edits and/or using the talk pages incorrectly, or for any impropriety. The current wording could be interpreted to mean that the choice of target was chosen primarily to inflict as much death as possible; while this may be possible, any wording that can be interpreted to mean that needs to be supported, ie, if it suggested or intimated that these were chosen to inflict maximum death this needs to be supported with evidence. It would need to be shown why, logically, the numerous other cities that are far more populated weren't ultimately chosen if this was indeed the goal and a primary goal. The large urban cities (as officially defined in geographical terms as "more than 3 miles") didn't necessarily need to be populated to showcase the power of the weapon--in fact, there is lengthy documentation that many scientists and officials were extremely hesitant to use it at all, so there is reason to doubt this hypothesis. Further, some potential choices included very low-population cities, which were decided against for various reasons (and importantly, none of the reasons being the low population). Finally, the officially documented rationale for use is both documented and supported, so I see very little reason to not included this (other than political bias, etc).

The officially issued reason for the decision is certainly from the US POV, but that is indeed a crucial perspective to include as the US is the nation that carried it out. To suggest that this view is biased is certainly possible (but no support has been provide to further that claim), but that also doesn't provide ground for excluding the rationale the US leadership offered. Any doubt or discrediting of the official account is certainly welcome so long as it is supported (by more than one's own biases against the decision/the US, of course). Where these alternative accounts should be listed is probably not the introduction, unless it is strikingly well-supported or well-accepted. In the case of the latter, then it should be contrasted alongside the officially detailed reasons offered by the US.

Further, that great importance was placed on the geographical size of the city and that it being previously unattacked and unlikely to be bombed in the interim period in the primary documents it entirely not addressed. Various secondary sources, as well as communications between committee members, make it very clear that the reason for this is to assess and demonstrate the destructive power. Granticus31 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This all sounds quite reasonable. I see no problem with the proposed change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

One point for you: I would not charactise the Targeting Committee decision as a solely US one, because there was a strong British presence in the form of William Penney, who was the one who came up with the idea of the air burst to maximise destruction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

My problems with the changes made by Granticus31 are as follows:

• Granticus wrote that the target selection rationale was "subject to controversy", but this is not borne out in sources. There was no controversy in choosing cities containing lots of workers plus a military installation or two. The controversy was in killing so many civilians, which would have been the case for any city. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The controversy about the decision to use the bombs is discussed in the closing of the introduction (ie, "while critics argue that the Japanese government could have been brought to surrender through other means, while highlighting the moral and ethical implications of nuclear weapons and the deaths caused to civilians"). The controversy I'm alluding to is whether you believe the official reports of the US/Allies. Indeed many in this very talk page have suggested this is biased from the American POV or that it was 'history from the side of the winner'. This was a compromise to suggest that you don't have to have to accept the official reports offered by the US/Allies.
  • Blinkerest is showing clear bias in that they believe the decision was "choosing cities containing lots of workers plus a military installation or two". This is fine as an opinion, but the idea that targetted strategic military targets that enabling the Japanese war efforts (and atrocities committed primarily in China) was merely an afterthought (as "plus a military installation or two") is not supported by the official reports whatsoever. It's fine to doubt government intentions, but you can't let that bleed into articles that aim to remain objective. Further, these workers were targetted because they were also involved in the manufacture of war machinery, which could be argued to being complicit in the violence. This is very different than choosing civilians who are no way involved, like in terrorist attacks. There is clear bias in the article to conflate this military action with terrorism as overtly mentioned in this very talk page. http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html Granticus31 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I hold an extremely complex view of this topic, so trying to ascertain my "clear bias" will be a futile exercise. The mostly American and partly British decision to use the bombs is the controversy here, as you rightly point out. But choosing the target cities did not add more controversy. The cities not chosen for destruction by atomic bomb were instead destroyed by incendiaries. There was no sizable city except ancient Kyoto that was saved from destruction by bombing of some sort. In fact, a small amount of controversy surrounds the fact that Kyoto was taken OFF the target list per Stimson. You might take this opportunity to read some modern historical analysis about the two atomic bombings, and about the extensive firebombings which wrought even more damage. Most historians agree that the US had changed in January 1945 from its moral highground position of aiming at only military installations to aiming at population centers which were hugely vulnerable to fire. The most recent pop history book about this is Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia. Gladwell says that the US was most certainly trying to kill lots of civilians with the 1943 development of napalm, tested on the Japanese Village in Utah, the same intention also signaled by rapidly expanding manufacture of napalm in 1944, with incendiary bombs shipped by the ton to the Southwest Pacific B-29 airbases to created a lethal stockpile, to kill millions of Japanese. This program got the green light once LeMay took over the strategic bombing program. He's often blamed, but the US military leaders were behind it all the way, and had been developing it for the previous two years. So for the atomic bombs, it is not such a surprise that the US is seen targeting a city containing a couple of military units but lots of civilians, some innocent, others less so. The histories I've read, which is just about everything written, agree on this point. When you hear that the US was only targeting civilian workers in war industries, you are hearing the public relations effort of the US military leaders. They all knew the collateral deaths would be massive. Regarding anger over atrocities in China, that was not a significant factor by August 1945. The Americans simply wanted the war to end as fast as possible. Killing lots of Japanese very quickly to shock Japan into surrender was one of the better plans to further this goal. Gladwell says that a recent Japanese historian expressed thanks to the US for dropping the atomic bombs because it enabled the war to stop sooner, and it prevented Japan being divided between a likely Soviet-held north and a Western Allied–held center and south. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I will respond in full but will first say that I should have been more careful to not say that you are biased but that I perceived impartiality in the edits and portrayal. Granticus31 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Granticus wrote that the target selection criteria specified that the target be "largely unattacked up to that point", but Nagasaki had been attacked on a small scale several times. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Again this is contrary to the report that explicitly and clearly says "(3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August" http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html Granticus31 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I would like to avoid the misconception that the target cities were not attacked because they were on the Manhattan target list, which was only partly true, and only after May 1945. The main reason that Hiroshima escaped bombing was that it was a transportation target, and priority had been given to attacks on the aircraft industry. As a port through which supplies had to travel to get to Kyushu, it would have been completely destroyed before the invasion of that island in November 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Granticus wrote that there was a between-bomb decision by Suzuki to ignore the American warnings and continue the war. The implication is that the Nagasaki bomb could have been prevented if the Japanese chose to surrender. But the two bombings were put in train at the same time, the timing left to the local commander, Tibbets. On the condition that the Japanese immediately sued for peace after the first bomb, the notional procedure for canceling the second bomb is not discussed in the sources. Suzuki's decision to keep fighting is significant but we should not imply that it led to the second bomb. The second bomb was scheduled already. Truman might possibly have sent a message to stop the second bomb, but we don't know that. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "The implication is that the Nagasaki bomb could have been prevented if the Japanese chose to surrender." That is not stated anywhere. There is no reason to omit that refusal to surrender as this is important to the timeline. Even if a surrender would do absolutely nothing to stop a second bomb, it still puts into context the decisions of the Japanese government and behaviour, which allows a reader to decide based on the facts, for example, what role Japan played in the bombing (it would be biased to say Imperalist Japan is fully innocent as much as would be to say the USA is entirely blameless) and perhaps what motivating the dropping in the first place. The previous version was clearly biased trying to vilify the Allies'/US actions and present Japan as a victim. The lack of cooperation is important regardless of the causal role. No such causal role is stated either. Granticus31 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I was responding to your edit summary which stated a wrong fact. You said, "Without this context, a reader could mistakenly infer that the bombing of Nagasaki was inevitable and already decided." Once you demonstrated that you were unaware that the second bomb was indeed "already decided", your contributions here were put in question. To me, it looks like you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Binksternet "Once you demonstrated that you were unaware that the second bomb was indeed 'already decided'" you're being unnecessarily unforgiving in your reading/interpretation of my comments. My wording was a bit rough, because yes I did know that that it was decided, but what I was alluding to was that if Japan offered immediate surrender after the first bombing, the subsequent bombing could potentially have been avoided (arguably). So by suggesting the second bombing wasn't already decided, I meant that it wasn't decided that there would be a second bombing 3 days after the first bombing, regardless of whether Japan surrendered or not. Therefore, I thought the best way to best way to objectively cover this was to relay the most basic facts, there was one bombing, a refusal to surrender after 3 days, and then a second bombing. Given that there is an entire subsection on those intervening three days (and their relevance to the series of events), it certainly seems warranted to me.
• Granticus wrote that supporters of the two atomic bomb attacks said that it would "deter future wars (under the doctrine of mutually assured destruction)". This is flatly wrong. Supporters of the atomic bombs were hoping that the Western Allies would not be challenged again in major war because they held the secret of the atomic bomb. They were horrified to find that the Soviets were able to make atomic bombs, which is when the mutually assured destruction idea was born. M.A.D. was never a goal of the American bomb makers. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppenheimer himself unequivocally stated he was reluctant to work on developing the bomb but one of the reasons he did is because he thought it would prevent future wars. I am fine with not referencing M.A.D. as this term was applied post-hoc, and Oppenheimer did not use this term himself (that I'm aware of). That said, to remain impartial and balanced, there has to be reference to "deter[ing] future wars" as this was certainly among the reasons for people who advocated its use despite its horrific toll on civilian lives.

    He did not, and MAD was not adopted after 1945, but twenty years later. Deterrence was not American doctrine in the 1940s. In the late 1940s US doctrine was that atomic bombs were to fight wars, not deter them. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the USSR did not have assured destruction capability, so US doctrine was based on a pre-emptive strike, which would attempt to neutralise as much of the USSR's nuclear arsenal as possible. Deterrence was a British idea. Deterrence should not be confused with MAD; most nuclear weapons states have nuclear deterrents, but not mutual assured destruction capability. (I removed this.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

    • Hawkeye7 wrote "He did not" but I'm not sure which comment of mine this quote is in response to, either "Oppenheimer himself unequivocally stated he was reluctant to work on developing the bomb but one of the reasons he did is because he thought it would prevent future wars" or "Oppenheimer did not use this term himself (that I'm aware of)"--perhaps both. However, in the book "American Prometheus" Part III, Chapter 15, (pp 321-323, in my edition) this is spelled out clearly. I quote: Granticus31 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

      • "BY LATE 1944, a number of scientists at Los Alamos began to voice their...growing ethical qualms about the continued development of the 'gadget'. [Robery Willson, referring to Opie] 'We did have a pretty intense discussion of why it was that we were continuing to make a bomb after the war had been (virtually) won.' ... This may not have been the only occasion when the morality and politics of the atomic bomb were discussed. The chemist Joseph O. Hirschfelder recalled a similar discussion held in Los Alamos’ small wooden chapel in the midst of a thunderstorm on a cold Sunday evening in early 1945. On this occasion, Oppenheimer argued with his usual eloquence that, although they were all destined to live in perpetual fear, the bomb might also end all war...Such a hope, echoing Bohr’s words, was persuasive to many of the assembled scientists." [For full disclosure on page 333 (ibid), these paragraphs are qualified with the following statement] "No official records were kept of these sensitive discussions. So memories prevail." ["American Prometheus" Part III, Chapter 15] Granticus31 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

        They were talking about international control not deterrence. "Deterrence" has a rather specific meaning in the nuclear weapons context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

      As I said above, I have no objection to not using the terminology of MAD, because this might create confusion. I will just reply in reference to "MAD was not adopted after 1945", by noting that "The concept of MAD had been discussed in the literature for nearly a century before the invention of nuclear weapons" (taken from the MAD Wikipedia page, history section), just to clarify that the concept of MAD had long been around by the time these discussions with Oppenheimer and others at Los Alamos were taking place, but will concede that using the term could be confusing as the concept is strongly tied to the post-WWII era and cold war specifically.Granticus31 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

      • • The first problem with your edit is the guideline WP:LEAD which says don't introduce new ideas in the lead section which are not a summary of existing article text. If you want to express Oppenheimer's hope for a deterrent, attribute him explicitly in the body of the article, and cite your source. In any case, Oppenheimer wasn't dictating US nuclear weapons policy, and his opinion did not carry the day. The thing you want the article to say, that atomic bomb "supporters" were in agreement that the atomic bomb would "deter future wars", isn't true. It applies only to a fraction of supporters. Other supporter views include those who wished to keep using atomic bombs. Author Albert I Berger wrote in Chapter 6 of Life and Times of the Atomic Bomb that "No doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons emerged from any of the thinking about them done between the bombing of Hiroshima and the first test of the Soviet bomb." In other words, there wasn't a consensus of what the new weapons might be good for, and Berger says such a consensus was not in place for four years at least. After Japan's surrender, the US military was busy planning scenarios involving nuclear weapons used immediately at the first outbreak of war with the USSR. That's not anywhere near the hopeful idea of "deter future wars". Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

          We have an article about this: United States war plans (1945–1950) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

        • Historian David Holloway wrote in Stalin and the Bomb that "There is no convincing evidence to show that the atomic bomb deterred a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in the first four years after the war." This shows that Oppenheimer's hope was groundless. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote in Racing the Enemy that by far the most important and immediate goal of the atomic bomb supporters was to hasten the surrender of Japan to prevent the Soviet Union from taking part. The bombs had to be dropped quickly, before the Soviets declared war. This is the main goal of atomic bomb supporters, not the "deter future wars" idea. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

          • Binksternet Your point regarding my edits not comporting with WP:LEAD guidelines well received, ie, I agree that references to deterrence is introducing new information in the lead that is not supported/discussed thereafter. I do plan to eventually add to this page (and the related pages) a well-cited discussion about the hope of the scientists who were primarily responsible for the development of the bombs (eg, Oppenheimer and Bohr) that they and other scientists and leaders/official thought that these bombs would be an "end to all war" and based their support/involvement in the Manhattan Project, to some extent, on these hopes. You say there was no consensus and hence "that's not anywhere near the hopeful idea of [deterrence]"; however, that's not what's being contended. What I am suggesting to add is that a case can be--and indeed was--made in support of the bombings under the notion of deterrence or protecting future peace ("end to all war"). Whether this is convincing is another story and even some of the scientist (like Oppenheimer and Bohr) that espoused this view were critical of the implementation. For example, they thought the bombs could be demonstrated without killing anyone. More to the point though, when evaluating this event in history, I contend that its impact on future wars should be considered and indeed was considered the scientists who are responsible for its development. By supporters, what exactly do you mean--Military officials? Scientist who developed the weapons? Historians/politicians of the time? Contemporary historians? Critics on the bombings are mentioned in the lead section and invoke moral/legal arguments, and rightly so. Just because their was no consensus/agreement as you state above, the critics views should be included. "The thing you want the article to say, that atomic bomb 'supporters' were in agreement that the atomic bomb would 'deter future wars'" No I don't want the article to say that, because there wasn't agreement (some scientist thought bombing was necessary; others thought a demonstration of the bombs would be sufficient), but I do want the article--when offering different evaluations of the event--to include on thing to consider in evaluating whether this was good or evil (or to what extent) is the idea of deterrence.

            Oppenheimer did not advocate demonstrating the bomb without killing anyone. There were people who advocated this, but Oppenheimer was not one of them. (Nor was Bohr.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

            • @Hawkeye7: Why don't you answer what you meant by "he did not"? I didn't say he advocated it, but he did acknowledge this concern. Why not address the main point instead of splitting hairs? Namely, Oppie and others saw the bombs as a way to "end all war" and their involvement in these projects was contingent upon it.

              Because it wasn't. Oppenheimer never saw it that way. He saw atomic bombs as a means of fighting and winning wars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

              • @Hawkeye7: "Oppenheimer argued with his usual eloquence that....the bomb might also end all war". Is that your opinion? Because his biography directly contradicts you. What do you take the above quote to mean?

Suzuki in the lead section

Certainly Prime Minister Suzuki should be mentioned in the lead section, either for his mokusatsu comment of 28 July responding to Potsdam, or his 6 August comment about continuing to fight despite Hiroshima, or both of these, or none of these. What do other editors think?

I'm asking because Granticus31 added Suzuki's second comment with this edit, stating the erroneous reason as "Without this context, a reader could mistakenly infer that the bombing of Nagasaki was inevitable and already decided." Such an inference is not a mistake at all, since the second bomb was already approved for use, and relegated to the local commander for him to deploy as soon as possible. We can add Suzuki's second comment if we don't try and make the reader think that the second bomb could have been stopped, which is conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Where we ran into trouble in the past attempting to find an appropriate wording was with the concept of mokusatsu. Someone had originally written that Japan rejected the Potsdam declaration, which we felt was too strong. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet I addressed this above, but I'll copy and paste down here. Are you suggesting that if Japan surrendered after the first bomb was dropped, that the Allies would have dropped a second bomb regardless of this surrender? This is why I think the wording is important. Below I explain why "decided" was a rough word choice to use in the summary of the dits, but there is certainly a difference 'approved for use' (which I acknowledge as fact, obviously) and something being inevitable. The fact that a third atomic weapon which was queued up and approved for use but was not used after a surrender was issued by Japan illustrates this point.Granticus31 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is my comment from above: "Once you demonstrated that you were unaware that the second bomb was indeed 'already decided'" you're being unnecessarily unforgiving in your reading/interpretation of my comments. My wording was a bit rough, because yes I did know that that it was decided, but what I was alluding to was that if Japan offered immediate surrender after the first bombing, the subsequent bombing could potentially have been avoided (arguably). So by suggesting the second bombing wasn't already decided, I meant that it wasn't decided that there would be a second bombing 3 days after the first bombing, regardless of whether Japan surrendered or not. Therefore, I thought the best way to best way to objectively cover this was to relay the most basic facts, there was one bombing, a refusal to surrender after 3 days, and then a second bombing. Given that there is an entire subsection on those intervening three days (and their relevance to the series of events), it certainly seems warranted to me.Granticus31 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The reader might not understand what is meant by surrender. Japan did not surrender until 2 September. The Japanese opened negotiations with the Allies on 10 August. The fighting continued. Work on preparing the third core continued; only on 13 August did Groves order that it not be shipped. There was a halt to the bombing on 11 August, but it resumed on 14 August, with raids that included Pumpkin raids by the 509th Composite Group. The Emperor announced an intention to surrender on 15 August. Had events proceeded at the same pace two days earlier, Kokura or Nagasaki might well have been bombed. Avoiding this fate would have required the Japanese to move faster than they did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There is some question what the refusal to surrender meant, ranging from inconsequential to resulting in a second bomb being dropped. Whatever the effect, it is an important detail, and the current wording doesn't suggest that surrendering would have prevented the second bomb being dropped nor does it suggest that the second bomb was entirely inexorable. Either way, the entire article is about the two bombs being dropped, I can't imagine why the Japanese response would be considered relevant for the lead section (other than bias for fear that it places some culpability onto Japanese leadership). There is substantial detail in the lead section about the deaths, several sentences, so I can't imagine how it would be balanced to not include that Japan reiterated that it planned to continue to fight, which is simply an objective fact. I don't buy the line of reasoning that even if Japan surrendered unequivocally and immediately, or voiced this strongly and quickly in some way, that a second bomb would have been dropped nonetheless. At any rate, everyone agrees with the current arrangement so the issue seems closed to me. Granticus31 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppenheimer views of developing the bomb to 'end all war'

@Hawkeye7: Oppenheimer, Bohr and many other scientists and officials saw the bomb as a way to put an end to all war, under the notion that the weapon was so terrific and devastating that the nature of war would be changed--basically, the stakes/risks were raised which would deter wars from starting. I find this a cogent argument and so did some of the most esteemed scientists of history. There was debate over whether the development of the weapons were sufficient or if they needed to be used in actual war, but that is an aside. Hawkeye7 suggested the "That is not correct. Source is misunderstood." What exactly is misunderstood and what exactly is incorrect? I think this is certainly worthy of inclusion. Here is the section that Hawkeye deleted, for reference:Granticus31 (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppenheimer and Bohr, who played central roles in the development of the weapons, along with many others working at Los Alamos, had ethical reservations about helping develop the weapon but ultimately found developing the weapon for its use on Japan to be justified. Robert Willson, referring to a conversation with Oppenheimer in late 1944, said "We did have a pretty intense discussion of why it was that we were continuing to make a bomb after the war had been [virtually] won." The book American Prometheus, notes that while "no official records were kept of these sensitive discussions" and only post hoc accounts from the scientists there are available, it is contended that "Oppenheimer argued with his usual eloquence that, although they were all destined to live in perpetual fear, the bomb might also end all war...Such a hope, echoing Bohr’s words, was persuasive to many of the assembled scientists."Granticus31 (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not worthy of inclusion. We deliberately tried to keep that section to a minimum. The article you want is Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: On what grounds is it not worthy of inclusion? It seems you're shifting the goalpost from "Oppenheimer did not said that" to completely ignoring the quote from the book suggesting that Oppie and Bohr indeed did say they were on the project under the pretense that it might "end all war" (above you said 'he never said that' but never clarified when presented with the quote?). Moreover, the entire reason there were weapons developed by the USA to be dropped was because the leading scientists only remained involved on a project (that otherwise seemed unnecessary) was under the assumption that it had the potential to deter future wars or "end all wars". That is, the entire reason we have this article in the first place is contingent on this fact. Of course, there's a possibility that other scientists would have developed it and so on, but historically we know that Oppie and Bohr and others did develop it so what case is there that they had this hope to end all war.Granticus31 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's your idea, not theirs. That's Kai Bird's words, not Oppenheimer's.

His main argument essentially drew on Niels Bohr's vision of "openness". The war, he argued, should not end without the world knowing about this primordial. The worst outcome would be if the weapon remained a military secret. If that happened then the next war would almost certainly be fought with atomic weapons. They had to forge ahead, he explained, to the point where the gadget could be tested. He pointed out that the new United Nations was scheduled to hold its inaugural meeting in April 1945 - and that it was important that the delegates begin their deliberations on the postwar world with the knowledge that mankind had invented these weapons of mass destruction. ... The scientists knew that the gadget was going was going to force a redefinition of the whole notion of national sovereignty.

What they were talking about is international control, a form of world government with the UN in charge of atomic weapons. The idea is that all states will cede some of their sovereignty to the international governing body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC) You said "That's your idea, not theirs." But I'm literally quoting from a book--how can me quoting "end all wars" be my idea? I'm quoting directly from a book--very much not my idea, but where I first considered the idea. The quotes you provided (e.g., "The worst outcome would be if the weapon remained a military secret." and "The scientists knew that the gadget was going was going to force a redefinition of the whole notion of national sovereignty." and "it was important that the delegates begin their deliberations on the postwar world with the knowledge that mankind had invented these weapons of mass destruction") only adds to the idea that there is more to the story of why the bombs were used than strictly just than inducing Japan to surrender ASAP. This is precisely what I'm suggesting is completely left out of the wikipedia page, that among the reasons for dropping the bombs was something larger in mind than simply ending the war, however you want to call this 'bigger picture' or concern for future wars or post-war engagements. Deterrence (and M.A.D.) as a concept existed for several decades before WWII, so it's not impossible to refer to this larger concept as such, but I do concede it can cause confusion as there is certainly a more conventional/typical usage of both of those terms; international control would be one option, but there's not a wikipedia page to link to precisely define this (that I'm aware). The quotes you provided could actually be used to establish that there are more arguments for the use of the bomb, and the lead section currently only has the argument for their use as bringing a "swift end to war". In my quote above, they discussed that the scientist had moral concerns about using devastating weapons in a "war that was virtually won", which brings to light that the sole reason was a swift end to war/minimized deaths is an inadequate/incomplete argument, and there must be other reasons. I'd simply like to see that the arguments for use are indeed more than simply ending the war, which is all the lead section mentions Granticus31 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"That's Kai Bird's words, not Oppenheimer's" Not only did I already acknowledge that, but further quoted the author stating that there are no records of the conversation, which actually makes the connection to Oppie more tenuous, ie makes my own case weaker, but I'm just pointing out you're being a bit fussy with the details (imho) instead of engaging the bigger point. I never said we should include that as if it's a direct quote from Oppie--in fact, I did the exact opposite. I just don't know why you wrote that as if it was an original thought. Granticus31 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to include Japanese-held Korean forced laborers as fatalities in infobox

In the infobox on causalities and losses, it doesn't seem to include that "About 5,000–8,000 [forced laborers/conscripts] Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and another 1,500–2,000 died in Nagasaki". I want to first confirm that I'm not mistaken and these numbers indeed aren't included; if so I request to add them and adjust the total deaths accordingly. If they were included, but under the heading as civilians, that seems highly misleading and would suggest separating these totals out. Also, if they need to be included, what terminology is appropriate? Korean forced laborers? Or perhaps Korean slaves/enslaved peoples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granticus31 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Granticus31 (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

They are included. They were believed to be undercounted in to "low" figures cited. Do not try to "adjust" the figures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are Japeneese-held conscripts and forced laborers being counted among the Japanese civilian population? Are you suggesting forced laborers are the same as civilians? Granticus31 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Do you know what conscription means? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you deliberately evade my main points repeatedly or you simply aren't comprehending me. The contention is over their identity, regarding them as Korean versus Japanese. By analogy, if the USA bombed German-occupied France, my question would be if any Frenchmen deaths would be counted as Geramn deaths. Japanese imperialism in the Pacific had been ongoing for many decades, so I acknowledge this situation is different, but that essentially is my question. Granticus31 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

Tibbets is quoted in several books as saying "I thought it would take five atom bombs to jar the Japanese into quitting. So we had fifteen atomic bombers lined up on Tinian with fifteen trained crews ready to go." A possible citation is on p 83 of Five Days in August which is already used as a reference. 202.7.218.62 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Request to eliminate the words "non-committal" with regards to the Japanese peace feelers sent to the Soviet Union in the Potsdam Declaration paragraph.

Greetings,

With regards to the peace feelers sent to the Soviet Union on the Emperor's behalf suggesting a conditional surrender, I think characterising those peace gestures as "non-committal" is subjective at best. As correspondence published on the US government's own Office of the Historian site shows, Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo was quite clear in expressing the Emperor's willingness to broker a peace agreement, going as far as to say "it is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war.". In the interest of accuracy I believe the paragraph should be amended to state that the Japanese were willing to enter into a peace deal, but unwilling to accept the unconditional surrender proposed by the Potsdam declaration, and a citation to the aformentioned telegram added to that sentence. The addition of "non-committal" in that line to me implies that it was a vague gesture, rather than a clear and definite desire to end the war. I apologise if that line is referring to some other correspondence. 72.140.1.89 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Delete the "Atomic Bombings" redirect

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are really specific. Instead, I think Atomic bombings should redirect to Nuclear Weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oofas (talk • contribs)

Until there are other atomic bombings, the redirect works just fine as it is. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Would like to change "A Fat Man" and "A little boy" into "the Fat Man" and "The Little Boy" as this makes more sense. Fatblabs (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" were code names for the type of the bombs. See the FAQ. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

/* External links */ broken link

The CIA page has been moved or deleted. Replacement might be

https://web.archive.org/web/20111215073403/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/final.pdf

Or perhaps https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/books-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan/ on the CIA page.

The second paper looks like a reformat. Keith Henson (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awash24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Change "Three days later, a Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki" to "Three days later, Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki" in the third paragraph. Tar-Almiel (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Category

One can have a discussion whether it was genocide or not. But it's a fact that it was a massacre. It's not the same, go read the definition Category:Massacres committed by the United States. Even the 2019 U.S. airstrike in Baghuz is on the massacre list, so why not this one?

It isn't a fact. You need to supply RS to obtain a consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Debate over bombings

I made edits to the in debate section highlighted below. Why was it not accepted?

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 American casualties; military documents from July 1945 estimated around 200,000. The naval blockade might have starved the Japanese into submission without an invasion, but this would also have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.

However, critics of the bombings have cited a belief that atomic weapons are fundamentally immoral, that the bombings were war crimes, and that they constituted state terrorism. Dwight Eisenhower, Allied commander and later U.S. president, argued that Japan was already defeated, only seeking surrender with a minimum loss of 'face', and dropping the atom bomb was unnecessary to save American lives.Senorangel (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Eisenhower was not the Supreme Allied commander; Douglas MacArthur was. Eisenhower had been Supreme Allied commander in Europe until June 1945, but was not at the time of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He had no responsibility for the Pacific Theater, and was not involved in the decision process. He did discuss the matter with Stimson in July 1945, but the claims made in his (often unreliable and self-serving) memoirs have been disputed. See Bernstein, Barton J. (1987). "Ike and Hiroshima: Did he oppose it?". The Journal of Strategic Studies. 10 (3): 377–389. doi:10.1080/01402398708437307. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Bernstein would not know as much the military side of things as Eisenhower did however. And the first highlight, why was that not accepted? Senorangel (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The first one refers not to "military documents" but to the casualty estimates put forward by General Marshall for Operation Olympic. So this would not be comparing the same thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

"Japan ignored the ultimatum"

Hi @Hawkeye7, I noticed that you reverted my edit removing the sentence in the title. I realized that I may not have given my full justification as for why it should be removed, so I figured it would be best to explain it here. I think that it should be reworded/removed because I believe ignored can have multiple meanings here: either Japan did not consider the ultimatum at all, or Japan carefully considered the ultimatum and decided to not act in response to it. I feel like it probably wanted to mean the latter here, but I saw the possibility of readers understanding it as the former, hence I WP:BOLDly removed the sentence. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 11:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly it was the second meaning: "kill by silence". We could tell the reader in the lead section that Japan chose to ignore it or that Japan refused to respond. Binksternet (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Without the explanation I thought the issue was with "ultimatum". What if we say: ignored (mokusatsu, "kill by silence") the ultimatum. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I would retain mokusatsu in the body of the article, and more briefly summarize the decision for the lead section by saying the Japanese chose to ignore or refused to respond. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

President name in leaders?

Shouldn't the president of the USA (and the emperor of Japan for that matter) be listed among the leaders in sidebar? 172.218.192.199 (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

For battles we only list the military commanders involved in the battle. We list national leaders for wars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@172.218.192.199 You maybe think wrong. This is a atomic bombing event and this is a Manhattan Project event it required only commanders have filled in this Article. THE NEWS SERVICE IEOS UPDATES (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Questioning need to Know.

In the Casualties and losses. There number who edit with a no source? I will gonna find some source about that number then. THE NEWS SERVICE IEOS UPDATES (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is just a summary of facts contained in the article. Refer to the body for sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 In for best information and always quality and more suggested and supported for article to all the one who that is Reader and Research more on this Article. and when all of you write your Casualties and losses must have a source to believe it the truth. We need to pick up a great believed source to the someone who reading this Article. THE NEWS SERVICE IEOS UPDATES (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is fully sourced. Refer to the discussion of casualties in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As of 2020, Japan has not signed the treaty.

Can we update this to "As of 2022, Japan has not signed the treaty." or should we leave it as is? Confusedslight (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Y Not without a source. Added one, and updated to "As of 2022". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

The third line has the following sentence "On 6 August, a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima..." The indefinite article 'a' doesn't seem to belong here. It should be removed, or the sentence should be restructured. 86.44.45.165 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

See question 5 in the FAQ above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why us dropped the nuclear bomb on japan

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of the 1945 on 8.15 in the morning this bomb tooked place and the whole city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was devastated and that made number of people being brutally injured and died which were mostly womans and children which had made a Big impact on the economy of the country. Till today they have radiation surrounded in the city, which was considered as one of the important cites in 1945 and people still fear of the nuclear weapons and bombs as a lot of people surrounded in that area are down syndrome and mentally ill and is really a dangerous and how impact it has till now even after the newly updated article as it dropped in 1945 which is in 2023 the 78 yrs ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.106.139.54 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The United States dropped the Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because Japan refused to surrender during World War II and also the Japanese killed 6 million Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Westerners. So since Japan refused to surrender and the America wanted to prevent more casualties, they dropped the nuclear bombs in order for Japan to surrender. 95.147.145.243 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Inflicting more civilian casaulty would not directly help anyone who had already been killed by the Japanese. Hiroshima had some military and defense related personnel and facilities. The two cities were not of critical or urgent importance, however. They had many civilians, contractors or otherwise. So I do think there could be a better way to force surrender. Japan was less of a threat by then. Senorangel (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)