Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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 (article contribs).

Info Box

This wasn't a battle, it was an attack on a civilian population. Nobody fought back. Why does it have a battle info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.203.18 (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The battle box is normally used for mltary operations like air raids. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

By this same logic, then all the bombings on German cities will fall under the same definition. Fact is, Hiroshima held a significant strategic value in a war. Battle box is appropriate for me. MUnderwood 18:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor 3833 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion battlebox is indeed quite out of place then air raid faces no resistance, meaning that there is practically no "battle". Operation infobox like used in Operation Opera would be more fitting in such situation.--Staberinde (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Only in hindsight can this air raid be said to have no resistance. This air raid was considered by the USAAF as an extension of the many firebombing missions that had been going for a half year, but with a bigger bomb of special type. There could have been anti-aircraft fire or fighter defenses, just like previous air raids. I think the Template:Infobox military conflict is appropriate. The fact that Japan chose not to challenge the B-29s is circumstantial. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that the raid on Nagasaki was engaged by the AA batteries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Operation Centerboard I Operation Centerboard II
Part of the Pacific War of World War II
Atomic bomb mushroom clouds over Hiroshima (left) and Nagasaki (right)
Type	Nuclear bombing
Location	Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Empire of Japan
Planned by	Target Committee
Commanded by	William S. Parsons Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. Charles Sweeney Frederick Ashworth
Target	Hiroshima, Niigata, Kokura, and Nagasaki
Date	August 6 and August 9, 1945
Executed by	509th Composite Group Manhattan District
Outcome	Hiroshima and Nagasaki heavily damaged.
Casualties	Hiroshima: 20,000 soldiers killed 70,000–126,000 civilians killed Nagasaki: 39,000–80,000 killed Total: 129,000–226,000+ killed

I don't find it circumstantial, battlebox creates impression that there was a "battle" while in practice it is quite hard to describe this operation as battle. Not to mention that this infobox doesn't treat it as a normal air raid anyway, in air raids strength is practically always counted in planes involved, not in personnel. Also this infobox has absolutely the most disproportional commanders I have seen in any wikipedia conflict infobox, one one side we have weaponeers and pilots of specific bombers, and on other side we have Field Marshal who was in charge of ground and air units covering half of Japanese home islands.--Staberinde (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Added an example of infobox which would be more fitting in my opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hata directed the forces and the relief efforts on the ground. Tibbets was the pilot of the Enola Gay, but he was also the commander of the 509th Composite Group, the formation that carried out the raids. Only Spaatz was between him and the Chief of Staff of the Army, George Marshall. Similarly, Parsons was the weaponeer, but he was also the commander of the Project Alberta. As such, only Groves (represented on Tinian by Farrell) and the Military Policy Committee (represented on Tinian by Purnell) were above him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I much prefer Staberinde's infobox. The bombings do not fit the definition of a battle. This was explicitly not an engagement between opposing forces but rather minor resistance to a targeted (and intentionally low-key) operation. There was no possibility of a counterattack or a "defeat" by the US, only an operational success or an operational failure. At most, the defence with AA-batteries in Hiroshima can be seen as a skirmish ("A minor battle in war, as one between small forces or between large forces avoiding direct conflict.") if in fact there was an exchange of fire between the two sides. One could easily argue that other bombings like the London Blitz are distinguished enough by their length, participants and the number of engagements. You only need one plane dropping an atomic bomb and any "battle" is over. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Vague statement re: Nagasaki bombing

In the section on the bombing of Nagasaki discussing the letters dropped with the instrumentation package, the following sentence is present: "In 1949, one of the authors of the letter, Luis Alvarez, met with Sagane and signed the document." The document that was signed is totally unclear and no context is provided in the rest of the paragraph. Could someone who knows what is being mentioned here replace "the document" with an appropriate description of whatever document is being mentioned? 128.101.142.135 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So you looked at the source, and what did it say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Make the word "kokutai" a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokutai Dave734 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done The first instance of the word is already linked, in the second paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration section. Generally, only the first occurrence of the term is linked. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"They remain the only use of nuclear weapons in the history of warfare."

The above sentence (from the lede) is not factually accurate. As these devices are weapons, all their usages, including tests, are by definition part of the "history of warfare". Even if a particular country were at peace with every other country in the world, building and testing a nuclear weapon is still part of the "history of warfare". There's been multiple simultaneous wars worldwide since possibly forever, but certainly since nukes were developed.