Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Target selection and Hiroshima

I found it surprising that Choice of targets doesn't mention the selection of Hiroshima as a target due to its pristine condition, and hence allowing the damage inflicted by the bomb to be more accurately measured. This is mentioned in Little Boy (citation), and seems quite relevant here. It was certainly highlighted at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum when I visited in 2009. Pseudonym99 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to include it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is already in the article, but it could be stated more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

page references other nationalities killed

but does not mention the 12 American POW's that were killed. http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm. I suggest that fairness if you are to list all nations, it should include all nations. otherwise this is just more bias wkik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.226.178 (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives and Death

Re: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

By some accounts, the alternatives were quite deadly also. Mass incendiary weapons were being tested, for example. Some statements and references about these should be included. --Tablizer (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All the alternatives were deadly. One was starvation by blockade, one was a continuation of firebombing, another was invasion. If there had been no atomic bomb and no peace offered by Japan, all three would have been used. Each of these could have killed millions more. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this Truman's warning to the Russians?

I know this might be something that has been discussed before, but I am aware (through a source that i cannot remember)that US President Harry Truman ordered the bombings as a 'heads-up' to the USSR; we know that the "Cold War" began as a direct result of World War 2, and this was Truman's 'shot across the bow' to the Russians; as if to say "we know what your intentions are, and this shows we've got the weapons and we know how to use them" thus beginning a further 45 years of covert conflict.Malc1968 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Truman had already informed Stalin about the Bomb prior to Hiroshima. Secondly, Stalin already knew about the Bomb through his extensive espionage penetration of the manhattan project. Thirdly, releasing film of Atomic testing would have achieved the exact same result for the Russians. Fourthly, the 'Cold War' didnt start in 1945, it started in 1947-48. In 1945 there was every indication that Russia was planning on playing nice in occupied eastern Europe (Except poland, which the west was willing to accept).

As if those facts were not enough, it is absurd to think that, faced with the potential deaths of a hundred thousand US servicemen or more, and the continuation of a bloody war, Truman was worried about anything except ending the war as quickly as possible is somewhat silly. The war had gone on for 6 years, and the US was about to lose the majority of its most experienced NCOs through the points system, and the US population back home was tired of war and didnt want any more massive lists of body counts. So two bombs were dropped, and lo and behold, the japanese surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.174.171.15, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit Double Survivors section to include reference to BBC causing offence with 'unluckiest man in the world' segment in QI television programme (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/bbc-apologizes-for-its-playful-take-on-double-a-bomb-victim)

81.174.171.15 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better reference which tells us what was said that is offensive? What are we supposed to say, "Some people on some quiz show said something or other that some other people thought was offensive"? That sounds pretty nebulous and vague to me. Banaticus (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing template while consensus is being reached. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag needed

This article vioaltes wiki's NPOV. The way things are phrased are very anti-american and anti-nuclear. For example it states that criteria was for cities to be "pristine" when is should state, "One of the primary criteria was that the target cities must not have been damaged by conventional bombing. This would allow for an accurate assessment of the damage done by the atomic bomb." Truman's quote is also chopped and edited to present him in a negative light. It should read, "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." I would like to request a neutrality tag be added until the wording can be brought more in line with wiki's NPOV policy. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Truman's Middle Name Is S (not S.)

Harry S Truman is the correct way to state his name. The article says "S."

Truman's Middle Name is "S" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.223.221 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hirgrnd1.jpg

Shouldn't the image File:Hirgrnd1.jpg be listed as Public Domain Japan? It was taken in 1945, so not sure why it is listed as fairuse copyright? Someone want to explain or change it? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyperlink Update for Footnote 119

Wiley site made changes, here's the new hyperlink for the Diplomatic History footnote 119

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1990.tb00078.x/abstract

Spmadden 21:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spmadden (talk • contribs)

Quote in bulleted list in "Choice of targets"

Under "Choice of targets", there is a bulleted list of criteria. It currently reads:
"[...] target selection was subject to the following criteria:

• The target was larger than three miles in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area.
• The blast would create effective damage.
• The target was unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."

These cities were largely untouched [...]"
The quote in the third bullet seems out of place. The best guess I can muster is that it is there to try to explain why urban areas were targeted rather than isolated military objectives like bases, units, storage depots, etc., and I think it accomplishes that reasonably well, but
1) the explanation of one of three criteria probably shouldn't be in the bulleted list itself,
2) if that quote relates to any bullet, then it's the first, not the third, since the quoted reason for not targeting a military objective was that if they missed their target, then they would have wasted the bomb,
3) and without context or explanation, this quote loses almost all meaning, or worse, implies something different than intended.
I would just assume to login and delete it to clean it up, but I'm sure whoever put it there had a reason for doing so, and I may be missing something here. Am I? I'll let this sit for the precisely defined duration of "a while" and if no one has anything to say about it and no one modifies it, I'll just login and delete it to make that section clearer. 98.166.122.89 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiroshima mushroom cloud photo caption

When you click on the image that is captioned 'The "Little Boy" mushroom cloud as seen from Enola Gay' it clearly states this is the Nagasaki mushroom cloud. It needs to be removed and susbtituted.Atomicjohn (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)