What it was like to survive the atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[Tennesseer]

Interesting article what with the 70th anniversary of the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki over the next few days. There are a number of links within the article with more detailed accounts from individual survivors of the blasts.

May the bomb never be dropped again.

What it was like to survive the atomic bombing of Hiroshima

Seven decades ago, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It almost instantly leveled most of the city and killed as many as 140,000 people. Three days later, on Aug. 9, another American bomber dropped a nuclear device on the city of Nagasaki, killing 40,000 to 80,000 people.

The devastation was followed by World War II's swift conclusion. It's seared into the collective global memory -- no other time in history has a nuclear weapon been used in war. The simple fact of the atomic bomb's awesome power went on to shape a half-century of Cold War geopolitics.

The justification for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings remains the source of perennial historical study and debate. As the world marks the events' 70th anniversary this week, the legacy of what was first unleashed above Hiroshima now looms over newer conversations about disarmament and the nuclear programs of emerging powers.

But what of the victims? Swaths of Hiroshima disappeared in a blistering flash, yet there were survivors. Here are some of the eyewitness testimonies of what took place on that terrible day in August 1945. (They have been gleaned from a number of oral history projects, all of which are easily accessible online.)

Complete article at the link below:

What it was like to survive the atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[NastyWoman]

I just recently reread "Hiroshima Diary" and as always it left me depressed.

The justification for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings remains the source of perennial historical study and debate

  This debate is one of the most depressing aspects of this whole event (or events if you include Nagasaki). On the one hand there are those who only look at how many (military) lives were spared by the effect of the bombs. Others counter by "but look at how many innocent civilians were killed. Soldiers know that they might get killed on the battlefield" (and that makes them guilty somehow?). 

I was very much in the latter group until sometime in the early 70's. At that time there was a debate on TV on this issue that made me doubt that either side is looking at the whole picture.  I have never heard anyone include the many Chinese, Korean, POWs etc. or even Japanese civilians had the fighting carried over to Honshu, in the number of people that would have died if the war had not abruptly ended. 

And that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth as a wannabe pacifist who has reluctantly come to agree that sometimes war is necessary and that puts us at the mercy of some "leaders" who seem to be just out to make a name for themselves in the history books.

[chiver78]

I read this earlier, it's from a slightly different perspective.

link

Hiroshima 70th Anniversary: Nuclear Bomb 'Should Never Be Used Again'

Seven decades after the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, a 99-year-old veteran refuses to give up his life's mission — to ensure nuclear warfare never happens again.

The city of Hiroshima will early Thursday (7 p.m. ET Wednesday) commemorate the 1945 moment "Little Boy" instantly killed at least 60,000 people. Three days later, "Fat Man" killed around 40,000 others in Nagasaki.

The bombings are credited with ending World War II but they left two cities in ruins and generations suffering the effects of radiation poisoning. Tens of thousands more later died from cancer and other illnesses.

Dr. James Yamazaki, a medical researcher with U.S. Atomic Bomb Medical Team in Nagasaki, witnessed first-hand the horrific effects of radiation sickness.

His research in the devastated Japanese city between 1949 and 1961 was focused on women who were pregnant at the time the bombs dropped. The shock of seeing his many patients suffer remains with the near-centenarian to this day.

"The children of the women who were pregnant, their children manifested the severe effect on the fetus with development of a small head size and mental retardation," he said.

"The impact of radiation on the human body — the long-term effect and principal effect — is the development of cancer. The enormous impact on human population is unacceptable."

**********************************click the link for the full article*****************************

[fairlycrazy23]

I think it was probably the correct action considering the circumstances at the time. Also FYI

The death toll for the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9 - 10, 1945 was at least 83,000 and perhaps as many as 250,000, more than the toll at Nagasaki and perhaps Hiroshima.

[NastyWoman]

There is also a, albeit disputed, claim that the firebombing of Dresden resulted in more deaths than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I really would like to be able to be 100% pacifist again, but with all the evil in the world I don't think I can.

[djAdvocate]

i think this is a terrific debate subject.

[djAdvocate]

i think you can have a much more nuanced debate than "right or wrong" on this, but i liked your synopsis.

[Phoenix84]

As someone who works in radiation safety, it's important to note that much of our scientific understanding of the biological effects of ionizing radiation come from the Atomic Bomb survivors.

Given the Japanese culture and context of the time, I don't think a large loss of life could have been avoided in any scenario.  I think at least a comparable amount, if not more would have been lost in a more conventional assault, on both sides.  And as Ratchets said, if you were leading the allied forces, and had a weapon that would destroy your enemy and end the war while saving your own countrymen's life, is it ethical to NOT use it?

[NastyWoman]

Aug 6, 2015 6:20:21 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

One can be 100% peaceful. One can pledge to never be an aggressor. I don't think it is possible to be 100% pacifist unless one is willing to accept that the outcome could be personal extermination at the hands of aggressors. I am personally very much at peace with the concept of responding to aggressors with force as necessary to prevail against them.

And therein lies the greatest regret of my life.  The fact that I no longer have the optimism that we can change the world into a peaceful one.  There was a time I truly believed that all people could live forever in peace if my generation just tried hard enough.  It was not to be. Now we are the "never-did-anything-right-selfish babyboomers (hey I am a frequent visitor on YM   but I am still trying...

On the positive side: many things changed → there is greater equality and greater awareness of the suffering of others. And new generations with fresh idealism come along to (I hope and trust) carry on the fight for a better world.   

[Phoenix84]

Aug 9, 2015 14:17:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you can have a much more nuanced debate than "right or wrong" on this, but i liked your synopsis.

Personally I don't spend a lot of time moralizing history, about who was right and wrong.  No point in playing Monday morning quarterback.

As I see it, it happened before my time, not much I can do about it either way. I think trying to understand WHY it happened and what people were thinking when they did it is far more interesting.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2015 1:12:52 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Aug 9, 2015 14:17:49 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you can have a much more nuanced debate than "right or wrong" on this, but i liked your synopsis.

I'm sure I could as well, but the purpose of the post wasn't to debate, just to throw a few thoughts out. Is there something you would like to debate?

not really.  i was merely pointing out that right and wrong is not really all that interesting or provable, unless you like to squabble. 

[mmhmm]

I believe I posted in another thread letting folks know to speak to the subject under discussion rather than the posters. That applies to the Current Events area just as much as to the Politics area. Thanks.

mmhmm, Administrator

[djAdvocate]

Aug 15, 2015 13:11:22 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Aug 15, 2015 12:50:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not really.  i was merely pointing out that right and wrong is not really all that interesting or provable, unless you like to squabble. 

If you don't find a person's post interesting, you can feel free to put them on ignore .

i was referring to the OP, not to you, Ratchetts.  but juts for the record, i will never put anyone on ignore here.  it defeats the purpose of being here, imo.

[mroped]

The two bombs brought upon Japan devastation beyond anyone's imagination up to that point.
Some claim that by killing in an instant so many it saved the lives of even more and there might be some truth in that.
Up to that point, the Japanese troops showed and proved that they will not willingly give up or surrender. They had pledged their allegiance to the emperor, the supreme ruler, descendent from the Gods. It was more about their honor then about wining the war or at least a battle.
Even after the bombs were dropped the troops having full knowledge and understanding of what happened were not willing to stop.
It took a personal address from the emperor himself over the airwaves and public appearance to bring about the cessation of fire and capitulation.
Up to that point nobody ever in history had seen or heard the emperor speak.
Proof of that total dedication to their cause is the fact that there were many pockets of Japanese troops that haven't gotten the message and kept on fighting a war that was already over. Didn't have the direct order, didn't want to stop!

True, the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo might have produce more casualties but neither did it in an instant. 
Was that the right choice? Maybe yes, maybe no.
What was the alternative?
Let the war drag on, at least as many Japanese lives cut short by bullets or shells and an almost equal number of American/allies lives to.
By doing it, the U.S. Proved that "we have the superiority and we can end you in a second! Please stop!"

Imagine having to bear the burden of making that decision.
Even worse, imagine being the guy that clicked the button that released the bomb!

I myself imagine that it was most likely a decision hard to take, a thing hard to do but they understood that there isn't much of a choice.
Having to witness every day a row of caskets being unloaded or full pages with names of people that are no more, is not easy. 
To put an end to that they did what they had to.

Im not saying that it was the right decision or the right choice but I also try not to think of "what if..." As in a different option.

What's done is done! It is in the past and the world had suffered for and is healing hopefully. The best we can do right now is to make sure that it doesn't happen again or that nobody has to come to make a decision like that again

[fishy999]

And somehow the only country to kill so many with such devastating weapons thinks it has the authority to dictate nuclear policy on other countries as if it has the moral high ground- that is quite arrogant.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Aug 16, 2015 19:56:09 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

And somehow the only country to kill so many with such devastating weapons thinks it has the authority to dictate nuclear policy on other countries as if it has the moral high ground- that is quite arrogant.

IMO it isn't arrogant. It is the country (USA) that unleashed the "nuclear genie" along with the countries that have developed nuclear weapons since agreeing that no other country needs it and it should never be used again. Unstable terrorist countries shouldn't have that power.

[b2r]

'Side Deal' Allows Iran to Inspect Its Own Military Site

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/side-deal-allows-iran-inspect-its-own-military-site-n412786

Boom!

[djAdvocate]

Aug 19, 2015 22:19:27 GMT -5 b2r said:

'Side Deal' Allows Iran to Inspect Its Own Military Site

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/side-deal-allows-iran-inspect-its-own-military-site-n412786

Boom!

the report is contradicted in this article.

Bust!

[Value Buy]

Aug 16, 2015 19:56:09 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

And somehow the only country to kill so many with such devastating weapons thinks it has the authority to dictate nuclear policy on other countries as if it has the moral high ground- that is quite arrogant.

Not sure arrogance is the right word.

Consequences and acceptance of the act is more like it, with an understanding of "never again".


Has anyone ever considered how many baby boomers might never had been conceived if the war went on killing another 75,000 American males, as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese baby boomers who never would have been born due to the slaughter of an invasion.
Quite a few posters here might never have existed as sons and daughters of baby boomers who never were born.
If you had grandparents serving in the Pacific, you might consider your family would not be here today except for the bomb.