this is from an australian uranium mining industry site (the worlds largest producer of uranium, btw): So basically, their estimate is 65,000 people from the imediate effects, and to this point under 1000 from long term effects. A far cry from 1,000,000. There were, in fact, only 250,000 residents in all of Hiroshima. Still, go to the first Texans regular season game, look around, and think about a single action killing everybody in the stadium (Reliant's capacity is 69,500).
According to the Aug. 6 New York Times, the Hiroshima bomb killed 140,000 and sickened hundreds of thousands more. They put Nagasaki at 70,000. I'm a little more inclined to take their number over a mining company's. If you think about what a huge scar on America's psyche the death of 3,000 people left, then the death of hundreds of thousands is almost unimaginable.
I watched a special about the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they actually chose these locations for a limited effect. The landscape of these cities would limit the amount of damage the blast created and the cities were relatively small. Imagine if the same bomb(s) were dropped on Tokyo... That would have been a million deaths or more I bet. Tokyo's population was around 6 million(or higher) at that time.
Sonny, I've also read in the past that the reason for not bombing Tokyo was that it had already been hit. The powers-that-be wanted to see first-hand the effects of the a-bomb alone on a city. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki apparently fit the requirements for a "good place to bomb" based upon their geography and the fact they hadn't been bombed like Tokyo. This would show exactly what the results of the bomb(s) were. From what I recall also, the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were different in that one had Uranium and the other Plutonium. This was also supposedly a study into the effects of each. I don't know if all this is true, but just passing along some "other" info.
1. Are you aware of the big brouhaha regarding the new managing editor for the Times, and his tendancy to let his political leanings change or miscolor the facts being presented? Finally, here's some official numbers from The Fall Of The Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank.
This site had some good info. http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html Hiroshima used Uranium and Nagasaki used Plutonium. Also: The Avalon Project at Yale Law School The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki : Chapter 10 - Total Casualties http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm
There were always other options, although I very much doubt that Truman et al could have been persuaded not to use the bomb at all, particularly after all that research and development. However, they could have a) used it in an unpopulated area as a threat or b) not bombed Nagasaki (both options were proposed). I watched some real footage of the aftermath of Hiroshima once, in class. It was so bad - even silent, in black and white - that a big six-foot-tall guy actually passed out cold and fell on me. Really, really disturbing. Let's never do that again. (I missed something, by the way - what happened to treeman's epic military training? Why is he back?)
I'm not very versed in history, so perhaps some of you could help me out with this one. Another reason behind dropping the bomb on Japan was a warning to countries like Russia that "don't even think about doing what Japan did in the future because this will be the result". Were we that wary of Russia back then? I know the Red Scare came a little later, but I couldn't remember if we were cautious with them back in the early-to-mid 40's.
Russia was initially aligned with Germany at the start of WWII, they signed a non-agression pact. Russia and the Allies only fought together because they had to. From the moment Russia took Berlin the Allies were very uneasy with Russia. Even when they met during WWII, things were edgy and uneasy. Stalin was a cruel person.
I guess the lesson here is don't start a war, and if you do, be prepared to be hammered if you lose. I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. If you don't start a war, you have nothing to fear. That is why Bin Laden is hiding out.....we are peaceful as a nation until we get wronged, then we are ruthless. DD
Understatement of the year. The relatives of the 20,000,000+ Russian citizens murdered under his thumb might use stronger language. Big thanks again to Mssrs. Marx, Trotsky & Lenin for the ideology that laid the groundwork for 100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century. But I digress.
these guys don't get enough credit for that feat of human history!! let's give 'em a all a big pat on the back...thanks, fellas!
Also, for perspective, I think there were perhaps 2x as many civilian deaths in the napalming/firebombing of Tokyo, as well as the firebombing of Dressden. Furthermore, the Japanese killed 2x - 4x as many civilians in Nanking. I just don't like the fact that we targeted civilians, even if they were about to become combatants. The film Black Hawk Down (and the facts behind it) helped me to realise that the distinction isn't always clear enough to be 'either/or'. When 6 year old children and pregnant mothers are packing AK-47's, trying to kill you, it's difficult to clearly define their status. Nevertheless, I still think that to target civilians because you suspect that they might change that status is a thin line. Every time I think about us nukeing a city of civilians recently, I can't help but imediately think of the planes flying into the World Trade Center, drawing our outrage for, to some degree, the fact that civilians were the target. I realise someone's going to hammer me for saying this, and I do realise that the situations were completely different, but I still see there being that one tenuous thread linking the two together. Furthermore, I'm not trying to pass judgement on the decision to drop the bomb or anything. I can't even imagine the perspective that they must have been viewing the situation from. Being in that type of protracted war is so far outside the range of my experience, that I can only guess how they felt at the time. One thing I've come to see is that when you see yourself being pushed up against a wall, priorities and moral values become not quite as absolute as many of us would like to believe, unfortunately.
Apologies to anyone I offended with that remark... It was not only ridiculous, but very insensitive. Middle of the night drunkpost, but no excuse... Certainly one of the dumbest and rudest things I've posted here. Apologies.
Ottomaton, while there are similiarities between the two events (civilian deaths, surprise attacks from the sky) there is one major difference: In 1945, we were at war with Japan. We had declared war on them, and they had declared war on us. We had been fighting across the Pacific for years. In 2002, there was no indication of a war with Al Queda. We knew they hated us and they were really good at attacking the occasional military target, but our country was not mobilizing towards attacking them. However both were very effective attacks, both were devastating, and both shocked the world.
Don't worry...I'd do it for you RC. Why am I not surprised? Do you think we could have just talked it out? There is another fact that is being left out. At the time that the decision was being contemplated, the war was not going well for us. We had entire units that had run out of supplies. They were being forced to surrender. To the Japanese, soldiers who surrender are less than human. The particular story I saw reported over the weekend was about a particular unit (there were many stories like this) that had to surrender. The Japanese made them march for a couple of days. Every so often the Japanese captors would shoot one of our boys in the head...just to show who was in control. Our options were clear. We could accept that these atrocities would continue to befall our countrymen, or we could do something drastic to end the conflict. Anybody who would secondguess this 57 years later cannot have a full understanding of what was really going on at the time, and comes into it with a flawed perspective.
rimmy -- i KNEW we could count on someone to come in and defend guys like Lenin!! ahhhhh...there is always someone willing to make an argument for the other side.
Max, I am not defending Lenin. I just do not like superficial understandings of ideas and history and the improper association (it went from Stalin to Marx to Trotsky to Lenin) that is both humorous and sad.
