Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Correct the error.

"A member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946."

to

Beginning in September 1945, just a week after the surrender of Japan, Lieutenant colonel Daniel A. McGovern, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, led a film crew to document the effects of the bombings.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68656372|title=Oppenheimer: Monaghan man who captured nuclear devastation|website=BBC News|date=31 March 2024}} 147.147.221.228 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

: {{done}} No error: he was a lieutenant at the time and not promoted to lieutenant colonel until after the war. Added link to new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

::Done? You haven't done anything! The sentence is still inaccurate: "used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946." He might have used a film crew in 1946 but he arrived just one week after the surrender of Japan = 9 Sept 1945. He is credited with being the first person from the Allied side to document the aftermath of bombings. Mcgovern made copies of the films he made because he was worried that the US Government would censor them. Oppenheimer watched them. They did lose the originals, his copies were revealed in 1967. Likewise, the term U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not even linked to its own article U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. There is zero interest on this site to give people (ie the reader) information. It's always about which team controls the article narrative. 147.147.221.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

What exactly is the problem with having commanders in the infobox? What's the point even discussing this? MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:It's a stable infobox compromise that reduces the military (glorification) side of what many people see as (in part) a massacre of civilians. EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

::It doesn't, in any way, glorify The event by listing who commanded the operation. This argument is nonsense. And "stable infobox" doesn't mean it's perfect, flawless and cannot ever be changed or improved. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

:::It's disappointing that you've reverted to your additions on this page yet again (four times now). I ask you (again) to undo the additions and seek a talk page consensus. Disagreeing with an established consensus and opposition to your proposed changes doesn't mean you should make those changes unilaterally yet again. EddieHugh (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::::Seeking a talk page consensus is ridiculous when everyone ignores the discussion. There is nothing wrong with listing who commanded the operation. These are just people who commanded it and that is all. It is always better to name the commanders anyway as it only adds to the article and saying it glorifies the event is even more ridiculous. Might as well remove the names of those who perpetrated other actual and deliberate crimes against people from the infoboxes of the articles about those events because by this logic, that also glorifies those events. This event is not any more special than those. 86.50.70.58 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|answered=yes}}

In paragraph 3 of the introduction, please change "On 6 August a Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later a Fat Man was was dropped on Nagasaki." to "On 6 August Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki." ColdPear5289 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Little Boy and Fat Man were types of bombs, not names of individual bombs. This is discussed in the second paragraph. Jamedeus (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be some inconsistency regarding the numbers of dead in this article.

The lead states that an estimated 90,000 to 146,000 people died in Hiroshima and that 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, while the "Post-attack casualties" section says that it was up to 140,000 in Hiroshima. What is the source of this difference of 6,000?

Also, the infobox uses an end-of-1945 figure for Nagasaki (which corresponds to the info in the Nagasaki "Events on the ground" section), but uses an unqualified figure (presumably immediate deaths?) for Hiroshima. Those figures of 70,000 and 126,000 don't appear to be sourced anywhere in the article. The Hiroshima "Events on the ground" section doesn't use the source which states 90,000 to 140,000 by year's end, and contradicts itself by using a different source which appears to incorrectly state that the immediate deaths were 80,000 to 140,000.

This also effects the headline figure of 129,000 to 226,000. The first is presumably from 70,000 + 90,000 (should be 130,000?) and the second presumably from 126,000 + 20,000 soldiers + 80,000. — Goszei (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:A [https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ 2020 article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists] appears to be a solid historiographical account of the varying casualty figures and their sources. It identifies a "low cluster" which is best represented by the 1951 Joint Commission Report, led by U.S. occupation forces: about 70,000 deaths within 3 months in Hiroshima, and 40,000 in the same period in Nagasaki, for a total of 110,000 dead. The article also identifies a "high cluster" best represented by a Japanese-led 1977 symposium which estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima by the end of 1945, and 70,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total of 210,000 dead. As the article states, the latter figures are likely superior because they considered three categories of non-residents who were omitted from the American studies: military victims, conscripted Korean workers, and commuting workers.

:Right now we mainly rely on [https://web.archive.org/web/20070919143939/http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html this source] from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has evidently been updated [https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/faq/ here] with a somewhat higher top figure for Hiroshima. This is 90,000–166,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 deaths in Nagasaki, for a total range of 150,000–246,000. According to the Bulletin article, the RERF is the organization which has continuity with the Joint Commission, and it appears to have incorporated the 1970s re-evaluations into what it reports on its website today. Although it isn't directly cited, the RERF figures appear to be what is used by the [https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-1945/ Atomic Heritage Foundation] in their main page on the bombings. I think the RERF is the best-available source and should be used throughout our article, from lead to infobox to body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:I think some of the confusion here is stemming from the military dead in Hiroshima. The body says that the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated there were 24,000 soldiers in Hiroshima, of which 7,000 died, then cites the 2020 Bulletin source, which mentions that the 1970s re-evaluations added perhaps 10,000 deaths to account for military deaths, which were omitted from most American studies. We then appear to add 7,000 and 10,000 to get ~20,000 military deaths, which I think is an error; the mortality rate isn't this high for any group in estimates. I think both the Bombing Survey and 1970s re-evaluations must be talking about the same 7,000 to 10,000 deaths, not additional ones. — Goszei (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:In an attempt to clear all of this up, I have made these revisions which cite the Bulletin and RERF sources throughout the article and add more detail on the different reports and their conclusions. — Goszei (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have time to be doing extensive editing right now, but I noticed that this article doesn't seem to mention the radioactive black rain that fell on parts of Hiroshima shortly after the bombing. This rain apparently contributed substantially to the radiation doses that some victims received (e.g. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41021-019-0141-8 this article ]). I think this is something that should be mentioned. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I cant edit but can someone change the date to “6th and 9th of august, 1945. Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done|Doing so would violate Wikipedia's manual of style; we do not use ordinals.}}   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ok just wanted to know Boeing747Pilot (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The Cairns Post of Queensland, Australia reports the discovery of “radioactive pitchblende, a source of atomic power” on page 1 of the edition of Thu 7 Oct 1948.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/title/61

Wide security probe ordered, press correspondents to be questioned, death penalty for treason, U.S. born Japanese convicted, in other headlines of the same issue. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

: The uranium used by the Manhattan Project came from the Congo, Canada, United States and Czechoslovakia. See the table below for details. After the war there was a rush to find new sources of uranium. In April 1948, the government offered a reward of £25,000 for the discovery of uranium ore in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|answered=yes}}

In the 3rd paragraph, "a Little Boy" should be "Little Boy", removing "a" StrukiTru (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Been resolved. Don't mind this. Wasn't aware they were types of bombs instead of names. StrukiTru (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Marked as answered PianoDan (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27Two_Suns_of_Japan%27&redirect=no 'Two Suns of Japan'] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 27#'Two Suns of Japan'}} until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

In Bombing of Hiroshima, the reported distance from the bomb is phisically impossible, thus the archive story from the Department of Energy must have it wrong. I propose to quote the archive with a warning. The B-29 dropped the bomb from 11,000 ft (3.4 km), which exploded 53 seconds later at 580 m; in 53 seconds the bomber could at the maximum operating speed of 560 Km/h fly 8.2 km at most. Pythagoras theorem gives us a distance of at most 8.9 km (8.8 if one subtracts the height of the explosion), less than half of what reported. It's possible that it was a typo by whomever typed that DoE historical archive.--Gciriani (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:The passage says {{xt|Enola Gay was 18.5 km (11.5 mi) away before {{strong|it felt the shock waves from the blast}}.}} Doesn't the speed of sound account for the difference? Remsense ‥ 论 15:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::At about 300 m/s 8.9 km take almost 30 s, during which the B-29 would have proceeded another 4.1 km. If one solves the 2nd degree equation for the smaller increments that are added (in Achilles and the turtle fashion), I obtain a total distance of 18.6 km from the explosion.

::However, at about 340 m/s, which I should have used in the calculations above at ground level (and the sound of an explosion actually goes a little faster because of the higher compression slightly changing the physics of sound waves), it's 15.7 km. Checking the speed of sound at various altitudes, the average would have been 333 m/s, giving 15.9 km. The archive article states 43 s for the bomb to explode, which would give us 13.1 km. Gciriani (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I guess I wasted your time, because I had used the incorrect height of 11,000 ft instead of 31,000 ft. With this corrections and the average speed of sound of 317 m/s the overall calculation gives 17.8 km, which is well within the error from the various flight data. Gciriani (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Not at all! I appreciated the refresher, even if it was a textbook word problem with the most ignominious framing. Remsense ‥ 论 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::You may want to post something at the Reference Desk? I'm curious too. Remsense ‥ 论 17:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"These targets were chosen because they were large urban areas that also held militarily significant facilities." Are the "militarily significant facilities" the schools and flammable wooden residential structures that the US had been targeting in major Japanese cities at the time because they burned easily? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-28/mapping-urbicide-in-world-war-ii Or, are we talking about the dock in Nagasaki that was left intact and the POW camp that contained British and Dutch soldiers? https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14343022 Or perhaps the Army camp in Hiroshima that the plane flew past and that was not in the destruction zone map as it dropped the bomb on the city center--something discussed as being more important than hitting the fringe military targets in the now released files? https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/61-54 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/015.pdf 2601:245:C101:96D0:3CB3:1173:469D:56E0 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:You can read about the military units in Hiroshima by looking at the section Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Hiroshima during World War II. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)