Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

No pictures of Japanese vicitms

In this articel there is a picture of Chinese civilians massacred by Japanese troops, but no pictures of Japanese victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I wonder why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.46.126 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the use of a photo of Chinese war victims, but not of Japanese war victims, is bizarre and can only be considered biased.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Added the commons category to the Links section.I could habe added a photo but where (lead section?) and which? some are very graphic and some are not precisely sourced. Still, it would make sense.--5.249.14.10 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk · contribs) has removed the link to the category on Commons, stating 'victims are not part of the debate'. I think they are but that's not the point. Some users think that the photograph of a Japanese victim would be useful. @Binksternet: As you seem to know better, would you mind terribly inserting one that you judge appropriate for this page, & where you think it's best? Thanks in advance.--Ian K.W. 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Binksternet's change. This article is about the debate over the use of the bombs, and the link to the commons category for photos of people killed or wounded by the bombs isn't directly relevant. This is also rather POV pushing - one could also add links to the Commons categories showing soldiers of all nations returning home or the generally successful Japanese transition to democracy, both of which were arguably brought forward by the use of the bombs. But that wouldn't be a good idea either - this isn't really a topic which aligns with the types of media available through Commons. Regarding including a photo of Japanese killed or wounded by the bombs here, there's a case for it - but that isn't what the recent edits were contesting. I Know AA, what photo do you suggest including, and where in the article? Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifics about the results of the bombs should be taken to the main bomb article. This article is about the debate, and the debate is about whether or not the atomic bombs were dropped rightly, to force Japan to stop making war, or wrongly, for various reasons. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, a lot of the concerns over the morality of the bombing outside Japan were initiated by first hand reports and photos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a well-chosen photo could provide a good example of this (some of the images are iconic, such as that showing the kimono pattern burnt into the skin of a woman in one of the cities). A relatively recent image of an A-bomb survivor speaking could also be useful, as they have also been prominent in generating concerns over the use of the bomb. Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. @Nick-D, 195.212.46.126, and Royalcourtier: The Commons Category for people killed by the bombs was far from perfect, indeed.

Nagasaki bombing survivor Sumiteru Tanigchi, in January 1946. Suffering inflicted, considered inhuman/ is a major argument against the legality of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings (or smth like that)

@Binksternet:'Specifics about the results of the bombs should be taken to the main bomb article': all right. But then, in good logic, so should specifics about their (alleged or real) causes, unless you want to illustrate only the support to the bombings. If you accept on the page, only images of debating people and abstract ideas on posters or books, and so on, I'm cool with that but we'd have to remove all other types of material (Chinese war victims, bombing of Tokyo etc), and I don't think that would get us consensus. Consensus, common sense, neutrality and good faith make the case for the insertion of a Hiroshima or Nagasaki casualty/victim.

If I had to suggest a photograph, it could be this one (but any that illustrates the idea would do, really), in the section Bombings as war crimes or Dehumanization or International Law, with a caption saying smth like Pain, considered as inhuman, is a major (moral/legal/military...depending on the section) argument against the legality/any justification of the (/any atomic) bombings, or equivalent...

Adding ALSO a recent photograph could also be useful, just like Nick-D said.

I'll be off the grid for a good while, so this will go on without me, sorry. Thanks.---Ian K.W. 10:53, 6/9 August 2016 (UTC)

Something like that would be good, but I'd suggest if possible a less gory image, perhaps monochrome, as per the principle of least astonishment. Such an image would also be less likely to be edit-warred. ··gracefool 💬 23:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be more convinced that an image is relevant if our article text described an element of debate based on the type of atomic injuries. Currently, there is no such sentence, let alone paragraph or section. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I am the one who wrote the first posting in this discussion. And I noticed there was an interesting discussion, but no action. Especially interesting I find the last posting, which claims that there is "no sentence, let alone paragraph or section that is based on the type of atomic injuries".

Question: Is there a sentence, paragraph or section, which is based on the "Chinese civilians massacred during Japan's campaign of total war in Xuzhou", since there is a picture of these events?

Another question: The paragraph next to the picture of the "Chinese civilians massacred" states a quote from Colonel Harry F. Cunningham. It says: "The entire population of Japan is a proper military target ... There are no civilians in Japan. We are making war and making it in the all-out fashion which saves American lives, shortens the agony which war is and seeks to bring about an enduring peace. We intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he or she is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time."

Since this quote is illustrated with the picture of massacred Chinese civilians I conclude that the Wikipedia editors are of the opinion that the same was true for the Japanese military efforts in China: "The entire population of China is a proper military target ... There are no civilians in China. We are making war and making it in the all-out fashion which saves Japanese lives, shortens the agony which war is and seeks to bring about an enduring peace. We intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he or she is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time."

It's a very twisted way to make a point, but I think it's also misleading. Because one could also conclude that the editors have the intention to justify the atomic bombing with the massacre of Chinese civilians - which would be a poor argument indeed.

Greetings, Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.46.126 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with Andreas and cannot see what the insertion of any image of the human damages directly caused by the bombing should have to do with “the type of atomic injuries”, whatever that means. I Know AA/ grass of oooooo, so greeeen 06:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

debate?

like a debate over dred scott decision? whenever is it moral to kill babies? i there is alternative. if it is moral - then it is also moral for Muslims to attack on 9-11Juror1 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

comparative war crimes are not mentionedJuror1 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? other war crimes that are comparable? Maybe because there are none (as using nuclear weapons). See the section on the subject in the article.grass of oooooo, so greeeen 13:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That presupposes using the Bomb was a war crime. There was a war on. Hiroshima & Nagasaki both produced weapons & supported the war effort. If bombing them is a war crime, so is bombing Berlin, or Dresden, or Essen. Do you really want to make that argument? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh please, I was just replying and pointing towards the section that develops this argument. But since you ask, I do, yes. And thanks for reminding me that this was during a war: that is exactly why it can be called a war crime, as international laws on warfare existed. The point is about the illegality of using nuclear weapons at all; hence my reply. As I suggested above, read the section (on Bombings as war crimes) and feel free to expand it. As for bombing Germany being another and comparable war crime or German and Japanese atrocities being comparable or not, maybe you can discuss that, but that’s not the point here.I know AA 22:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So the "illegality" of using atomic bombs is a war crime, & so is bombing Essen, is it? That's not a position I've ever seen advanced anywhere else. Nor, for that, have I ever seen use of a new weapon rated "illegal" post facto & its use only then called a crime, until nukes arrived. (I don't recall if German use of gas was after WW1.) And, BTW, your sarcasm does you no favors. It doesn't impress me in the slightest, & it does make me thing you actually have no argument. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just read again and carefully what I’ve written above, as it was unequivocally, I believe, my definitive answer to the issue addressed in this section. The rest seems of no interest for the good-faith editing of the page.I know AA 07:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No treaties??

"...no international treaty banning or condemning nuclear warfare has ever been ratified."?? How about Treaty of Tlatelolco? And Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will soon go effective.219.116.143.51 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"a greater civilian death toll and area of fire damage than both nuclear bombings combined"

"This Tokyo residential section was virtually destroyed following the Operation Meetinghouse fire-bombing of Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March 1945, which was the single deadliest air raid in human history;[40] with a greater loss of life than the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki as single events or a greater civilian death toll and area of fire damage than both nuclear bombings combined." Actually, the estimates for total combined bombing raid deaths on Tokyo and the deaths from Hiroshima are fairly even with the highest for Hiroshima at 146,000 and the highest for Tokyo at 130,000. Combined, only the lowest possible estimates are lower than the highest estimates for all Tokyo bombing raids combined. According to this website, at least. Frankly I believe that contrasting low and high estimates to support a bias is disgusting, and a wide range of estimates should be provided at least within reason (nothing like "1,000,000 killed in Hiroshima" or nonsense like that). Statements like the one I quoted above, that purposely conflate evidence from two sides of the spectrum with exaggerated language, should not be tolerated. I also don't like the trend of using other war crimes as excuses for war crimes committed. If tens of thousands of civilians are killed does it really matter whether it was a war crime or not, since it was horrific regardless? If you can't do anything else, at least separate the unfortunate civilians from whatever crimes their rulers might have committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:C500:7B20:61C4:371E:8CFC:8CC4 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FulingSong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SS history

Why did the USA drop the atomic bombs and was their decision to use atomic bombs justified 41.115.4.47 (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The USA dropped the atomic bombs in order to make Japan surrender and bring an end to World War II. Also the USA was justified in doing it. 95.144.204.68 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Request: add the reasons why the bombings do not meet the definition of genocide

Hi

I'd like to request that the article include why the bombings are not considered genocide, how they do not meet the definition. Currently the article simple states 'Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide', but doesn't explain why or who has made or not made that assessment, I think this would be a useful addition.

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

The circumstances that constitute as genocide are as follows:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So it would be hard to argue genocide. The bombings satisfy most if not all of the conditions (a-d) mentioned. The nuances really come down to whether or not the United States intended to destroy, "in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," which could be highly arguable. It could go both ways. While you could argue that the bombings where not aimed to target a specific group per se, the vice versa could also be validly argued. The same goes with intent. Given how controversial this is, I don't even think using genocide is a valid argument, given how it springs up a sub-debate on the fine distinctions of what can actually be considered genocide. Rather than add a section to include why the bombings are (or are not) considered genocide, I would say it should be removed.

Of course, if you disagree or have a counter argument, I would like to hear it.

Thanks Ethqnol.exe (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I think the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't Intended to kill innocent civilians but the United States had to do it because Japan refused to surrender and The United States wanted to prevent more casualties from happening. Also I think the Nanking Massacre fits the definition of a Genocide more than the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 95.147.145.243 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Well I think the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't Intended to kill innocent civilians"

There's no way that killing civilians wasn't the intention here, and as for the notion that the US "had to do it" - the conclusion of every single other conflict in the history of humanity demonstrates that war can be ended without nuclear warfare being waged primarily against civilians. 2404:4408:670B:2D00:CC65:6CE6:22A6:932D (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "There's no way killing civilians wasn't the intention here". The main intention behind the Hiroshima bombing was to destroy the headquarters of the Second General Army. The next atom bomb was intended to destroy an arsenal in Kokura but since the sky was too cloudy and the pilots couldn't see, they decided to drop it on a Naval Base in Nagasaki instead. Also if killing civilians was the main intention of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then it would be categorized as a war crime, but it's not. Furthermore, I am always tired of hearing phrases like "the victors always define morality" and "Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't war crimes because America won the war" which are not true at all because the spraying of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War is not classified as a war crime even though the United States had lost that war, meaning that the winners don't always define morality and the main intention behind Agent Orange according to the United States Military was to "kill the trees and expose the enemy" and they mentioned nothing about killing civilians, same goes for Napalm. Moreover, despite General Curtis LeMay saying "If we'd lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals", he only meant if the United States Generals were captured by the Imperial Japanese authorities, they would prosecuted as war criminals, but if they got away with it like the ones sprayed Agent Orange and Napalm then nobody will be there to prosecute them.95.144.204.68 (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

D.W. Mackenzie citation

The argument as to why the Japanese refusal to surrender justified the use of the atomic bomb as outlined by D.W. Mackenzie, while relevant, may not meet the standards of reliability desired from a source:

D.W. Mackenzie notes that the outcome of the War in the Pacific was decided at the Battle of Midway in 1942. That being the case, the Japanese government had a moral obligation to end war, the outcome of which was already decided. The Japanese therefore bear primary responsibility for The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, due to their failure to end what had become an unwinnable war.

Prof. Mackenzie's background as an assistant professor of Economics does not constitute expertise in the ethical implications of the bombings, and his writings on the subject add up to little more than a private individual's opinion. Furthermore, the citation itself links directly to a blog post on Substack, which seems inappropriate and may violate the norms of citing sources on Wikipedia. It seems the best course of action would be to delete this section all together. JohnnyHotcakes99 (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Necessity of Operation Downfall

For those who support the bombings, I think the most persuasive argument against the bombings is that Eisenhower, Nimitz, and MacArthur seemed to think the bombings unnecessary. But the view of these military leaders is predicated on the assumption that Japan could be defeated through blockade and conventional aerial bombing, without a full-scale invasion. So then the key question becomes whether in fact Operation Downfall was necessary. It seems like there is not enough explanation of this aspect of the problem. Was Operation Downfall in fact necessary to defeat Japan? The brief explanation seems to be that Truman, Marshall and others in Washington felt that domestic support for the war could not be sustained through the time it would take for blockade/bombing to defeat Japan. Of course the sovereignty of Hokkaido also comes into play. One could argue that the people of Hokkaido owe their freedom today to those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, since Soviet Union likely would have invaded. Wars that end quickly are often better than wars that drag on. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Genocides that end quicker are better than ones that are carried on.

See Japanese war crimes#War crimes 2405:6580:D420:5C00:88D2:4A50:B83D:B444 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)