![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sixty Years Ago
Aug. 5th, 2005 09:52 amOn the 6th of August, 1945, a Boeing b-29 Super-Fortress took off from Tinian Island in the Pacific. The previous day, August 5th, the name "Enola Gay" had been painted onto the nose-cone and a new weapon, LI1, had been loaded aboard. Weighing 10,000lbs and containing 128lbs of Uranium-235, theis weapon was code-named 'Little Boy'.
At the same time, over Japan, four spotter planes were circling potential targets. Only one reported low winds and light cloud. In other words, it was a pleasant summer day in Hiroshima.
Little Boy was released from 21,000ft at 0815 hours and detonated 800ft above the target with the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.
When Oppenheimer first saw his creation used, his response was to quote "For I have become death, the destroyer of worlds".
There's a lot of debate about whether or not the above should have happened; the most likely estimate I can find suggests 66,000 people died in the initial explosion and from burns; deaths from subsequent illnesses are less certain, but estimates vary from there being no statistically sugnificant change in the incidence of cancer and laeukaemia in the Japanese population in the subsequent years to almost 350,000, which is most likely cobblers.
Would more than that many people have died if Japan had been conquered in conventional terms? Almost certainly. The use of nuclear weapons gave Hirohito the opporuntity to over-rule his generals (one of whom had told the Empire of Japan to prepare for 'one hundred million deaths' when the invasion came) and sure for peace.
So one group of people died that a larger group might live. Are any of us qualified to make a moral judgement on that?
I'm certainly not.
It's a fact of history and one that people seem to have learned from, if the subsequent 60 years of history are any evidence. Some people have criticised the Japanese for playing down the war and making it seem as if they were the victims of international aggression in their school textbooks. If you like, you can read the relevant book and decide for yourself
( The Commander's View )
At the same time, over Japan, four spotter planes were circling potential targets. Only one reported low winds and light cloud. In other words, it was a pleasant summer day in Hiroshima.
Little Boy was released from 21,000ft at 0815 hours and detonated 800ft above the target with the explosive force of 20,000 tons of TNT.
When Oppenheimer first saw his creation used, his response was to quote "For I have become death, the destroyer of worlds".
There's a lot of debate about whether or not the above should have happened; the most likely estimate I can find suggests 66,000 people died in the initial explosion and from burns; deaths from subsequent illnesses are less certain, but estimates vary from there being no statistically sugnificant change in the incidence of cancer and laeukaemia in the Japanese population in the subsequent years to almost 350,000, which is most likely cobblers.
Would more than that many people have died if Japan had been conquered in conventional terms? Almost certainly. The use of nuclear weapons gave Hirohito the opporuntity to over-rule his generals (one of whom had told the Empire of Japan to prepare for 'one hundred million deaths' when the invasion came) and sure for peace.
So one group of people died that a larger group might live. Are any of us qualified to make a moral judgement on that?
I'm certainly not.
It's a fact of history and one that people seem to have learned from, if the subsequent 60 years of history are any evidence. Some people have criticised the Japanese for playing down the war and making it seem as if they were the victims of international aggression in their school textbooks. If you like, you can read the relevant book and decide for yourself
( The Commander's View )
