RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT

WORLDWIDE CLIMATE

Click here to go directly to images, animations and

additional information

Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea

ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to
come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data --
the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to
more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved Side by side
understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide. comparisons of seaice
from 1979 and 2003.
The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1
issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of
Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over
the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.

"The new study is unique in that, previously, similar studies made use of data from very
few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region," said the study's author, Dr.
Josefino C. Comiso, senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md. "These results show the large spatial variability in the trends that only
satellite data can provide." Comiso used surface temperatures taken from satellites
between 1981 and 2001 in his study.

The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found
perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per
decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate
this persisted in 2003.

Researchers have suspected loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing
atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming
Arctic temperatures that result from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

Warming trends like those found in these studies could greatly affect ocean processes,
which, in turn, impact Arctic and global climate, said Michael Steele, senior
oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle. Liquid water absorbs the Sun's
energy rather than reflecting it into the atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm
and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating positive feedbacks that
lead to further melting. Such dynamics can change the temperature of ocean layers,
impact ocean circulation and salinity, change marine habitats, and widen shipping lanes,
Steele said.

In related NASA-funded research that observes perennial sea-ice trends, Mark C. Serreze,
a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that in 2002 the extent of Arctic
summer sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, suggesting this is part of a
trend. "It appears that the summer 2003 -- if it does not set a new record -- will be very
close to the levels of last year," Serreze said. "In other words, we have not seen a
recovery; we really see we are reinforcing that general downward trend." A paper on this
topic is forthcoming.

According to Comiso's study, when compared to longer term ground-based surface

temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times
the rate of warming over the last 100 years.

Comiso's study also finds temperature trends vary by region and season. While warming
is prevalent over most of the Arctic, some areas, such as Greenland, appear to be cooling.
Springtimes arrived earlier and were warmer, and warmer autumns lasted longer, the
study found. Most importantly, temperatures increased on average by 1.22 degrees
Celsius per decade over sea ice during Arctic summer. The summer warming and
lengthened melt season appears to be affecting the volume and extent of permanent sea
ice. Annual trends, which were not quite as strong, ranged from a warming of 1.06
degrees Celsius over North America to a cooling of .09 degrees Celsius in Greenland.

If the high latitudes warm, and sea ice extent declines, thawing Arctic soils may release
significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now trapped in permafrost, and
slightly warmer ocean water could release frozen natural gases in the sea floor, all of
which act as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, said David Rind, a senior researcher at
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York. "These feedbacks are complex
and we are working to understand them," he added.

The surface temperature records covering from 1981 to 2001 were obtained through
thermal infrared data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites.
The studies were funded by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, which is dedicated to
understanding the Earth as an integrated system and applying Earth System Science to
improve prediction of climate, weather and natural hazards using the unique vantage
point of space.

Seasons of Change: Evidence of Arctic Warming Grows

SYNOPSIS:

Experts have long regarded Earth's polar regions as early indicators for global climate
change. But until the last few years, wide ranging, comprehensive research about overall
polar conditions has been challenging to conduct. Now a more than twenty-year record of
space based measurements has been analyzed by researchers at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center. Based on their findings, evidence of a warming planet continues to grow.
 Click on image for the Reporter Package
animation with audio

Click here for TEXT of Voiceover

CHANGING SEASONS, CHANGING ICE

Research and data collection of Arctic Ocean ice isn't easy. But in this sequence using
data collected by a number of satellites from 1979 to 2003, we see how scientists have
been able to stitch together a careful record of sea ice in that part of the world. In 2002
scientists recorded the lowest concentration of sea ice ever in The Arctic. While
temperature changes vary across the vast expanse of The Arctic, overall trends suggest
that decreasing ice concentrations are due to a significant increase in ocean warming,
from rising surface temperatures to the total number of annual "melt days".

Less ice means more open water. More open water means greater absorption of solar
energy. More absorption of solar energy means increased rates of warming in the ocean,
which naturally tends to yield faster rates of ice loss.

The data used to create these images come from a variety of different instruments flying
on a group of satellites; they include the scanning multi-channel microwave radiometer
attached to the Nimbus 7 satellite, and the special sensor microwave imagers attached to
the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's F8, F11, and F13 satellites.

Part of the challenge for researchers was in the elimination of "bad data", from
atmospheric interference to instrument calibration issues and more. One reason that data
acquired by microwave detecting instruments such as those flying on the DMSP satellites
is that microwaves can penetrate the cloud cover that frequently blankets the Arctic. One
of the most apparent characteristics of Arctic ice is just how dynamic and complex an
environment it is. Through continued research and gathering of data, scientists hope to
achieve a better level of understanding about the processes at work in the cryosphere.
 1979: low res, high res -- 2003: low res, high
res

Arctic perennial sea ice has been decreasing at

a rate of 9% per decade. The first image
shows the minimum sea ice concentration for
the year 1979, and the second image shows the
minimum sea ice concentration in 2003. The
data used to create these images and the
following animation were collected by the
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
(DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imager
(SSMI). Credit: NASA

1979 TO 2003 SEA ICE COMPARISON

These two images show a comparison of Arctic sea ice concentrations between 1979 and
2003. 1979 marks the first year that data of this kind became available in any meaningful
form. To date, 2003 is the second lowest concentration of sea ice on record. Experts
recorded the lowest measured concentration of sea ice during 2002--just last year.

Click on image to view animation

This animation shows the annual minimum

sea ice extent and concentration for 24
 years, from 1979 to 2003. The year 2002
showed lowest level of sea ice on record.
Credit: NASA

Still image of 2002: low res, high res

WARMER AND COOLER

Space based observation facilitate a kind of thoroughness that ground based observations
cannot realistically approach. Based on 20 years of data collected by infrared
measurements, surface warming trends in The Arctic are eight times greater than trends
over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. According to this
study, the sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade.

The readings are not uniform, however. While average temperatures are increasing
throughout The Arctic, there are several places where there appear to be cooling trends.
Greenland is a good example; the data there suggest a mild decrease in average
temperatures through the time period being analyzed.

The data used to create these images were collected by the AVHRR instruments onboard
the NOAA POES satellites.

Click on image to view animation

This animation shows surface temperature

anomalies in the Arctic for each year from
1981 through 2002. The orange and red
colors represent an increase of 0 to 7
degrees C, while the blue colors represent a
decrease of 0 to 7 degrees. Each color step
indicates a change of 0.25 degrees Celsius.
The data used to create images 5, 6, and 7
were collected by the AVHRR instruments
onboard the NOAA POES satellites.
 Credit: NASA

High resolution image

Sea ice extent reached a record minimum

in September, 2002, and retreated to
almost the same position in September,
2003, as observed using satellite passive
microwave data. The absence of ice off
Greenland is particularly unusual. Sea ice
concentration in the western sector of the
Arctic Ocean was anomalously low as well.
Credit: NSIDC

PRESSURE TO CHANGE

Taken in isolation, one year's worth of data does not tell us much. Just as we all know
that some days of the year might be unusually hot or cold, we intuitively understand that
dramatic events in isolation are simply anomalies.

But many samples of data can imply change. Taken as collections of information, trends
begin to emerge based on a pattern. In this sequence we see how 21 years of accumulated
data indicate temperature trends in the Arctic. While the overall direction of the trend
suggests warming for the region, there are many places where the average temperature is
falling year after year.
 Click on image to view animation

This animation shows overall warming and

cooling trends in the Arctic over a 22-year
period from August 1981 to July 2002. The
orange and red colors represent an
increase of 0 to 0.4 degrees C, while the
blue colors represent a decrease of 0 to 0.4
degrees. Each color step indicates a change
of 0.02 degrees Celsius. Note that while
much of the Arctic has experienced
warming, some regions exhibit an overall
cooling pattern. Credit: NASA

Still image of 20 year trends: low res, high

res
Color-coded trends in the sea ice cover are
shown for autumn, winter, spring and
summer using AVHRR surface
temperature data from 1981 to 2001. The
trends are very positive in summer and
mainly positive in autumn and spring
suggesting a change towards longer melt
periods. In winter, large areas are shown to
have negative trends but these areas are
also where the sea ice cover has been
increasing in winter during the same
period. Credit: NASA
 The length of the melt season inferred from
surface temperature weekly data has been
increasing by 9, 12, 12, and 17 days per
decade in sea ice covered areas, Greenland,
Eurasia (>60o lat), and North America
(>60o lat), respectively. Longer melt
periods would mean reduced growth
season, thinner sea ice and less extensive
sea ice cover in the summer. Credit: NASA

BRIGHT WHITE REFLECTS LIGHT-

THE GLOBAL ROLE OF THE POLAR CAPS

The polar caps not only hold much of the planet's total fresh water, but also play an
important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. The relevant characteristic is called
albedo. It's a measure of how much radiation, or light, is reflected from a body. Similar to
how a white shirt helps keep a person cooler in the summer than a black shirt, the vast
stretches of polar ice covering much of the planet's top and bottom reflect large amounts
of solar radiation falling on the planet's surface. Were the ice caps to appreciably recede,
sunlight that otherwise would have been reflected back into space would get absorbed by
the darker, denser mass of ocean and land beneath. As light is absorbed, the environment
is heated, thus intensifying a feedback loop: a warmer planet yields more ice melting thus
an even warmer planet.
 Click on image to view animation

This is a conceptual animation showing

how polar ice reflects light from the sun. As
this ice begins to melt, less sunlight gets
reflected into space. It is instead absorbed
into the oceans and land, raising the overall
temperature, and fueling further melting.
Credit: NASA

IS THE OCEAN RISING?

This animation provides a closer perspective of the relationship between ice and solar
reflectivity. As glaciers, the polar caps, and in this case, icebergs melt, less sunlight gets
reflected into space. It is instead absorbed into the oceans and land, thus raising the
overall temperature, and adding energy to a vicious circle.

Of the many concerns voiced by scientists who study global warming trends, rising ocean
levels is one of the most dramatic. An average rise in global ocean levels of just a few
inches could have devastating effects on coastal towns, cities, and ecosystems. Why then
is even the slightest risk of a shrinking polar cap not sounding alarms all across the
world's lowland regions?

It comes down to a simple principle proved thousands of years ago by the Greek
philosopher and scientist Archimedes. He showed that a body, in this case the floating ice
of the North Pole, immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the
displaced fluid. In other words, since the northern pack ice is already floating its melting
would not independently cause ocean levels to rise. However, the attending planetary
conditions necessary to facilitate polar melting would likely have other enormous effects
on the environment. These include the likely melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland
and the vast reaches blanketing southern polar cap. As the ice over Greenland and
Antarctica is NOT floating, a corresponding rise in the world's sea level would almost
certainly result if it melted.
 Click on image to view animation

This is a conceptual animation showing

how melting ice on land and at sea, can
affect the surrounding ocean water,
changing both the chemistry and relative
sea level. Credit: NASA

OBSERVATIONS FROM ABOVE- NASA'S EARTH OBSERVING FLEET

From space, the whole world unfolds every day. Orbiting the planet more than ten times a
day, NASA's Earth Observing Fleet is uniquely able to make the kinds of measurements
that experts need to track systemic changes on the Earth below.

With regard to studies about the Earth's cryosphere, several space-based systems stand
out. For starters, there's the AMSR-E instrument flying on the Aqua satellite. A sensor
that measures microwave emissions, AMSR-E can make precise measurements about
overall snow and ice coverage to a degree never before possible. The Aqua satellite
blasted into space on May 4, 2002.

There's the ICESat spacecraft, launched January 12, 2003. With its one scientific
instrument called GLA, ICESat continues to deliver state of the art measurements of
changing surface features of worldwide ice cover. By pulsing a laser 40 times a second
and measuring its reflected light, the GLAS instrument will be an important tool for
tracking changes in the Arctic and elsewhere.

There's an instrument called MODIS, flying on both the Terra and Aqua satellites that
can determine precise color measurements of the Earth below. In terms of science, color
is information, and with MODIS's superbly sensitive capabilities, fine details about
terrestrial features are just now beginning to resolve.

The POES spacecraft belong to NASA's sibling agency NOAA. But using data from this
Earth observing workhorse, researchers continue to make important observations about
thermal emissions and other characteristics about the planet below.
 Click on image to view animation

This is an animated sequence of several

NASA satellites and instruments that are
dedicated to observing the Earth's systems,
including the cryosphere. Credit: NASA
Disappearing Island Nations
Sinking feelings and global warming

It seems that every time I turn on the TV or open a newspaper or magazine, I

see another story about global warming. It’s not only the big environmental issue of the
day, it’s one of the big issues, period. Maybe it doesn’t feel quite so frightening or quite
so urgent as terrorism or outbreaks of deadly diseases, but certainly it’s right up there.
The condensed version of this story—the one that has most thoroughly worked its way
into the public consciousness—says that global temperatures have risen much more
rapidly during the industrial age than they did before; that they will continue to rise; that
worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are largely to blame for
this situation; and that the resulting changes in weather, climate, sea level, and so forth
will—sooner or later—be utterly devastating in one or more of several ways. Meanwhile,
the United States, which is responsible for some outrageous percentage of the world’s
greenhouse gases, is apparently disinclined to reduce those levels, on the grounds that
hypothetical long-term problems are outweighed by actual short-term problems such as
the extreme inconvenience and cost of reducing emissions.

Burning Rage
Naturally, I’m incensed at all this, especially when I read stories about the apparently
imminent disappearance of several entire island nations due to the rising sea levels that
are, in turn, a result of global warming. And, assuming that global warming is in fact
caused by greenhouse gases (as most people do), it is astonishing that people continue
driving gas-guzzling SUVs and smoking cigarettes and, you know, generally showing
contempt for the future inhabitants of the planet as a whole and those island nations in
particular.

And yet, the reality is much more complex than the sound-byte-friendly version of this
problem you hear about on TV. The prevailing notion seems to be that warmer
temperatures will melt polar ice caps and glaciers, thus sending more water into the ocean
and uniformly raising its level. And though there is a certain amount of truth to that, it is
a simplified and misleading picture at best. So I thought it would be interesting to look
briefly at some of the facts and controversies surrounding the islands that appear to be
sinking into oblivion.

Taking a Dip in the Ocean

The islands most frequently mentioned as being at risk are those closest to sea level. Take
the Maldives, for instance—an island nation in the Indian ocean. The highest point in the
entire chain of islands is only 2.4 meters (8 feet), and most of the land is much lower. So
it doesn’t take much of a change in sea level to wipe out vast amounts of land, and if
there’s a bad storm or an unusually high tide, the resulting floods can be devastating—
covering the vast majority of the land, fouling fresh water supplies, and wiping out crops.
Unfortunately, such floods have been occurring more and more frequently in recent
years. The nation’s government has for several years been working on the construction of
an artificial island nearby, called Hulhumale, which will be able to serve as a new home
for many of the residents if an evacuation becomes necessary.

There’s also Tuvalu, in the Pacific ocean between Hawaii and Australia,
with a maximum elevation of 4.6 meters (15 feet). Although the nation has fewer than
11,000 citizens, they are sufficiently convinced of its imminent disappearance that they
have already begun to evacuate. New Zealand has agreed to grant “environmental
refugee” status to 75 Tuvaluans per year, but according to some estimates, the nation may
be entirely covered with water in as little as 50 years. Some of the other island nations
most seriously at risk are Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tonga.

Causes and Effects

The evidence that these islands could disappear is fairly plain to those who live there:
they’ve seen the waterline move farther and farther inland in the past couple of decades,
experienced more and worse storms than previously, and endured flooding that in some
cases covered entire islands. And in fact, few people dispute that these nations are in
danger to one degree or another (though some would say the danger is rather remote). But
it’s tricky to prove the connection to global warming and the further connection to
greenhouse gases.

For one thing, even granting that global warming can and does increase sea level to some
extent, measuring sea level is a difficult and inexact science—partly because the sea
doesn’t like to stay put very long, and partly because any measurement requires a fixed
frame of reference (such as land). But the land itself can rise or fall for various reasons,
including seismic activity and subsidence due to water table depletion—meaning the
appearance of a rising sea level may be due partially to the fact that an island is actually
sinking. Furthermore, unusual weather patterns, such as El Niño, can cause dramatic local
changes in sea level. Maybe global warming is responsible for the wacky weather and
maybe not. But the point is that global warming may be only an indirect cause, or a minor
contributing factor, to the shrinking islands.

As for the carbon dioxide connection, that’s also in dispute. Yes, carbon dioxide levels
are higher now than in the past; yes, average global temperatures are also higher now
than in the past; yes, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can raise the
temperature; and yes, human activity produces an enormous amount of carbon dioxide.
But some people say that the average global temperature also rose in centuries past when
cars and factories could not have been to blame (and then fell again)—causing doubt that
human activity is responsible for our current problems.

I find such statements suspiciously convenient, coming as they frequently do

from parties that have the most to gain and the least to lose from continued fossil fuel
consumption. Be that as it may, none of this changes the fact that more and more of the
Maldives finds itself underwater every year. One way or another, the whole situation is
rather depressing—especially if you happen to live on one of the islands that is most
seriously affected by flooding. By the time the world’s luminaries have reached a
unanimous agreement as to whether the planet really is warming up, whether carbon
dioxide emissions really are responsible for this problem, and whether we’re collectively
willing or able to do anything about it, some of the nations in question may already be
long gone. —Joe Kissell
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little Boy

The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises
18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter
[show]
v•d•e

Japan campaign

[show]
v•d•e
 Pacific War

During the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United States conducted two atomic
bombings against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

For six months, the United States had made use of intense strategic fire-bombing of 67
Japanese cities. Together with the United Kingdom, and the Republic of China the United
States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese
government ignored this ultimatum. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman,
the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima on Monday,
August 6, 1945,[1][2] followed by the detonation of "Fat Man" over Nagasaki on August 9.
These two events are the only active deployments of nuclear weapons in war.[3] The target
of Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance, containing Japan's Second
Army Headquarters, as well as being a communications center and storage depot.[4]

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–
166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[5] with roughly half of the
deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health
department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died
from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During
the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness,
and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and
short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash
burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness.[6] In both cities, most of
the dead were civilians.[7][8][9]

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender
to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially
ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. Germany had signed its Instrument
of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe. The bombings led, in part, to post-war
Japan adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding the nation from nuclear
armament.[10] The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical
justification for them, as well as their strategical importance, is still debated.[11][12]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 The Manhattan Project

o 1.1 Choice of targets
• 2 The Potsdam ultimatum
• 3 Hiroshima
o 3.1 Hiroshima during World War II
o 3.2 The bombing
 o 3.3 Japanese realization of the bombing
o 3.4 Post-attack casualties
o 3.5 Survival of some structures
• 4 Events of August 7–9
• 5 Nagasaki
o 5.1 Nagasaki during World War II
o 5.2 The bombing
• 6 Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan
• 7 Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation
• 8 Depiction and public response
• 9 Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
• 10 Hibakusha
o 10.1 Double survivors
o 10.2 Korean survivors
• 11 Debate over bombings
o 11.1 Legal situation in Japan
• 12 See also
• 13 References
• 14 Further reading
• 15 External links
o 15.1 Archives
o 15.2 Commemoration
o 15.3 Debate

o 15.4 Unsorted

The Manhattan Project

Main article: Manhattan Project

The secret U.S. project to create the first atomic weapon was known as the Manhattan
Project. Working in collaboration with the United Kingdom and Canada, with their
respective projects Tube Alloys and Chalk River Laboratories,[13][14] the project designed
and built the first atomic bombs. The scientific research was directed by American
physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer and the overall project was under the authority of
General Leslie Groves, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Hiroshima bomb, a
gun-type bomb called "Little Boy," was made with uranium-235, a rare isotope of
uranium extracted in giant factories in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The atomic bomb was first
tested at Trinity Site, on July 16, 1945, near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The test weapon,
"the gadget," and the Nagasaki bomb, "Fat Man," were both implosion-type devices made
primarily of plutonium-239, a synthetic element created in nuclear reactors at Hanford,
Washington.[15] Preliminary research began in 1939, originally because of fear that Nazi
Germany would develop atomic weapons first. By early 1945, the defeat of Germany
caused attention to turn to possible use against the Japanese.
Choice of targets

A map showing mission runs of August 6 and August 9, with Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and
Kokura (the original target for August 9) displayed. Click to enlarge.

On May 10–11, 1945, the Target Committee at Los Alamos, led by J. Robert
Oppenheimer, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as
possible targets. The target selection was subject to the following criteria:

• The target was larger than three miles in diameter and was an important target in a
large urban area.
• The blast would create effective damage.
• The target was unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly
military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage
in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the
bomb."[16]

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air
Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could
be made. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation
in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that
a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are
likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage.
Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."[16] The goal of the weapon was to
convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam
Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors
in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the
greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently
spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when
publicity on it is released. Kyoto had the advantage of being an important center for
military industry, as well an intellectual center and hence better able to appreciate the
significance of the weapon. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any
other target but is of least strategic value."[16]

During World War II, Edwin O. Reischauer was the Japan expert for the U.S. Army
Intelligence Service, in which role he is incorrectly said to have prevented the bombing
of Kyoto.[17] In his autobiography, Reischauer specifically refuted the validity of this
claim:

"...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L.
Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto
ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."[18]

The Potsdam ultimatum

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration outlining
terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a
surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete
destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the
Japanese homeland". The atomic bomb was not mentioned in the communique. On July
28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese
government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press
conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the
Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu lit. "kill by
silence").[19] The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear
rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to
noncommittal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position.
[20]
On July 31, he made clear to his advisor Kōichi Kido that the Imperial Regalia of
Japan had to be defended at all costs.[21]

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the
bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His
stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war
by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to
cause Japan to surrender.[22]

Hiroshima
Hiroshima during World War II
The Enola Gay and its crew, who dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima

A replica of the Little Boy atomic bomb

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military
significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the
headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army
Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a
minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications
center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese
cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment
to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.[23][24]

The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter
structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small
wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the
outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of
the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was
highly susceptible to fire damage.

The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but
prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a
systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack, the
population was approximately 340,000–350,000.[5] Because official documents were
burned, the exact population is uncertain.

The bombing
Seizo Yamada's ground level photo taken from approximately 7 km northeast of
Hiroshima.

The "Little Boy" mushroom cloud as seen from Enola Gay.

The Hiroshima Genbaku Dome after the bombing.

For the composition of the USAAF mission, see 509th Operations Group#Components.
Hiroshima was the primary target of the first nuclear bombing mission on August 6, with
Kokura and Nagasaki being alternative targets. August 6 was chosen because clouds had
previously obscured the target. The 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay,
piloted and commanded by 509th Composite Group commander Colonel Paul Tibbets,
was launched from North Field airbase on Tinian in the West Pacific, about six hours
flight time from Japan. The Enola Gay (named after Colonel Tibbets' mother) was
accompanied by two other B-29s. The Great Artiste, commanded by Major Charles W.
Sweeney, carried instrumentation; and a then-nameless aircraft later called Necessary
Evil (the photography aircraft) was commanded by Captain George Marquardt.[25]

After leaving Tinian the aircraft made their way separately to Iwo Jima where they
rendezvoused at 2,440 meters (8,010 ft) and set course for Japan. The aircraft arrived
over the target in clear visibility at 9,855 meters (32,333 ft). During the journey, Navy
Captain William Parsons had armed the bomb, which had been left unarmed to minimize
the risks during takeoff. His assistant, 2nd Lt. Morris Jeppson, removed the safety
devices 30 minutes before reaching the target area.[26]

The dark portions of the garments this victim wore during the flash caused burns on their
skin.[27]

About an hour before the bombing, Japanese early warning radar detected the approach
of some American aircraft headed for the southern part of Japan. An alert was given and
radio broadcasting stopped in many cities, among them Hiroshima. At nearly 08:00, the
radar operator in Hiroshima determined that the number of planes coming in was very
small—probably not more than three—and the air raid alert was lifted. To conserve fuel
and aircraft, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations. The normal radio
broadcast warning was given to the people that it might be advisable to go to air-raid
shelters if B-29s were actually sighted. However a reconnaissance mission was assumed
because at 07.31 the first B29 to fly over Hiroshima at 32,000 feet (9,800 m) had been the
weather observation aircraft Straight Flush that sent a morse code message to the Enola
Gay indicating that the weather was good over the primary target and because it then
turned out to sea the 'all clear' was sounded in the city. At 08.09 Colonel Tibbets started
his bomb run and handed control over to his bombardier.[28]

The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) went as planned, and the gravity bomb known as
"Little Boy", a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kilograms (130 lb) of uranium-235, took
43 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at 31,060 feet (9,470 m)[29] to the predetermined
detonation height about 1,900 feet (580 m) above the city. The Enola Gay had traveled
11.5 miles away before it felt the shock waves from the blast.[30]

Due to crosswind, it missed the aiming point, the Aioi Bridge, by almost 800 feet (240 m)
and detonated directly over Shima Surgical Clinic.[31] It created a blast equivalent to about
13 kilotons of TNT (54 TJ). (The U-235 weapon was considered very inefficient, with
only 1.38% of its material fissioning.)[32] The radius of total destruction was about one
mile (1.6 km), with resulting fires across 4.4 square miles (11 km2).[33] Americans
estimated that 4.7 square miles (12 km2) of the city were destroyed. Japanese officials
determined that 69% of Hiroshima's buildings were destroyed and another 6–7%
damaged.[6]

70,000–80,000 people, or some 30%[34] of the population of Hiroshima were killed

immediately, and another 70,000 injured.[35] Over 90% of the doctors and 93% of the
nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured—most had been in the downtown area which
received the greatest damage.[36]

Although the U.S. had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35
Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki,[37] the residents of Hiroshima were
given no notice of the atomic bomb.[38][39][40]

Japanese realization of the bombing

Hiroshima before the Hiroshima after the bombing.

bombing.

The Tokyo control operator of the Broadcasting Corporation of Japan noticed that the
Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using
another telephone line, but it too had failed.[41] About 20 minutes later the Tokyo railroad
telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of
Hiroshima. From some small railway stops within 16 kilometers (10 mi) of the city came
unofficial and confused reports of a terrible explosion in Hiroshima. All these reports
were transmitted to the headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff.

Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The
complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large
enemy raid had occurred and that no sizeable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that
time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to
Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for
the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and
that the explosion was just a rumor.

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about
three hours, while still nearly 100 miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a
great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima
were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A
great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that
was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo,
immediately began to organize relief measures.

By August 8, 1945, newspapers in the U.S. were reporting that broadcasts from Radio
Tokyo had described the destruction observed in Hiroshima. "Practically all living things,
human and animal, were literally seared to death," Japanese radio announcers said in a
broadcast received by Allied sources.[42]

Post-attack casualties

A victim with massive burns.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy the immediate effects of the blast killed
approximately 70,000 people in Hiroshima.[43] Estimates of total deaths by the end of
1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by
lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000.[5][44] Some estimates state up to
200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.[1][7][45] Another study
states that from 1950 to 1990, roughly 9% of the cancer and leukemia deaths among
bomb survivors was due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being
estimated to 89 leukemia and 339 solid cancers.[46] At least eleven known prisoners of
war died from the bombing.[47]
Survival of some structures

Small-scale recreation of the Nakajima area around ground zero.

Some of the reinforced concrete buildings in Hiroshima had been very strongly
constructed because of the earthquake danger in Japan, and their framework did not
collapse even though they were fairly close to the blast center. Eizo Nomura (野村 英三
Nomura Eizō?) was the closest known survivor, who was in the basement of a reinforced
concrete building (it remained as the Rest House after the war) only 170 m (560 ft) from
ground zero (the hypocenter) at the time of the attack.[48][49] Akiko Takakura (高蔵 信子
Takakura Akiko?) was among the closest survivors to the hypocenter of the blast. She had
been in the solidly built Bank of Hiroshima only 300 meters (980 ft) from ground-zero at
the time of the attack.[50] Since the bomb detonated in the air, the blast was directed more
downward than sideways, which was largely responsible for the survival of the
Prefectural Industrial Promotional Hall, now commonly known as the Genbaku, or A-
bomb Dome. This building was designed and built by the Czech architect Jan Letzel, and
was only 150 m (490 ft) from ground zero. The ruin was named Hiroshima Peace
Memorial and was made a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1996 over the objections of
the U.S. and China.[51] The Memorial monument for Hiroshima was built in Hiroshima
for bombing victims.[52][53][54]

Events of August 7–9

Truman announcing the bombing of Hiroshima

President Truman announces the bombing of Hiroshima.

Problems listening to this file? See media help.

After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman issued a statement announcing the use
of the new weapon, and promising that:

If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like
of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land
forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of
which they are already well aware.[55]

The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor
Hirohito, the government, and the war council were considering four conditions for
surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity),
assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and
demobilization, no occupation of the Japanese Home Islands, Korea, or Formosa, and
delegation of the punishment of war criminals to the Japanese government.[56]

The Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov had informed Tokyo of the Soviet
Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact on April 5. At two
minutes past midnight on August 9, Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces
had launched the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Four hours later, word
reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan. The senior leadership of
the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the
support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make
peace.

Responsibility for the timing of the second bombing was delegated to Colonel Tibbets as
commander of the 509th Composite Group on Tinian. Scheduled for August 11 against
Kokura, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five day period of bad weather
forecast to begin on August 10.[57] Three bomb pre-assemblies had been transported to
Tinian, labeled F-31, F-32, and F-33 on their exteriors. On August 8, a dress rehearsal
was conducted off Tinian by Maj. Charles Sweeney using Bockscar as the drop airplane.
Assembly F-33 was expended testing the components and F-31 was designated for the
August 9 mission.[58]

Nagasaki
I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which
has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we
pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.

—President Harry Truman, August 9, 1945 [59]

Nagasaki during World War II

The Bockscar and its crew, who dropped the "Fat Man" atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of
great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the
production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

In contrast to many modern aspects of Hiroshima, almost all of the buildings were of old-
fashioned Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings with wood
walls (with or without plaster) and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business
establishments were also situated in buildings of wood or other materials not designed to
withstand explosions. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without
conforming to any definite city zoning plan; residences were erected adjacent to factory
buildings and to each other almost as closely as possible throughout the entire industrial
valley.

Nagasaki had never been subjected to large-scale bombing prior to the explosion of a
nuclear weapon there. On August 1, 1945, however, a number of conventional high-
explosive bombs were dropped on the city. A few hit in the shipyards and dock areas in
the southwest portion of the city, several hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, and
six bombs landed at the Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital, with three direct hits on
buildings there. While the damage from these bombs was relatively small, it created
considerable concern in Nagasaki and many people—principally school children—were
evacuated to rural areas for safety, thus reducing the population in the city at the time of
the nuclear attack.

To the north of Nagasaki there was a camp holding British Commonwealth prisoners of
war, some of whom were working in the coal mines and only found out about the
bombing when they came to the surface.

The bombing
A replica of the "Fat Man" atomic bomb
For the composition of the USAAF mission, see 509th Operations Group#Components.

On the morning of August 9, 1945, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress Bockscar, flown by the
crew of 393rd Squadron commander Major Charles W. Sweeney, carried the nuclear
bomb code-named "Fat Man", with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the
secondary target. The mission plan for the second attack was nearly identical to that of
the Hiroshima mission, with two B-29s flying an hour ahead as weather scouts and two
additional B-29s in Sweeney's flight for instrumentation and photographic support of the
mission. Sweeney took off with his weapon already armed but with the electrical safety
plugs still engaged.[60]

Observers aboard the weather planes reported both targets clear. When Sweeney's aircraft
arrived at the assembly point for his flight off the coast of Japan, the third plane, Big
Stink, flown by the group's Operations Officer, Lt. Col. James I. Hopkins, Jr. failed to
make the rendezvous. Bockscar and the instrumentation plane circled for 40 minutes
without locating Hopkins. Already 30 minutes behind schedule, Sweeney decided to fly
on without Hopkins.[60]

Nagasaki before and after bombing.

By the time they reached Kokura a half hour later, a 70% cloud cover had obscured the
city, prohibiting the visual attack required by orders. After three runs over the city, and
with fuel running low because a transfer pump on a reserve tank had failed before take-
off, they headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki.[60] Fuel consumption calculations
made en route indicated that Bockscar had insufficient fuel to reach Iwo Jima and would
be forced to divert to Okinawa. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on
their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if
necessary, the weaponeer Navy Commander Frederick Ashworth decided that a radar
approach would be used if the target was obscured.[61]

At about 07:50 Japanese time, an air raid alert was sounded in Nagasaki, but the "all
clear" signal was given at 08:30. When only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at
10:53, the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and
no further alarm was given.

A few minutes later at 11:00, The Great Artiste, the support B-29 flown by Captain
Frederick C. Bock, dropped instruments attached to three parachutes. These instruments
also contained an unsigned letter to Professor Ryokichi Sagane, a nuclear physicist at the
University of Tokyo who studied with three of the scientists responsible for the atomic
bomb at the University of California, Berkeley, urging him to tell the public about the
danger involved with these weapons of mass destruction. The messages were found by
military authorities but not turned over to Sagane until a month later.[62] In 1949, one of
the authors of the letter, Luis Alvarez, met with Sagane and signed the document.[63]

A Japanese report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as "like a graveyard with not a
tombstone standing".

At 11:01, a last minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's
bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The "Fat
Man" weapon, containing a core of ~6.4 kg (14.1 lbs.) of plutonium-239, was dropped
over the city's industrial valley. It exploded 43 seconds later at 469 meters (1,540 ft)
above the ground exactly halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the
south and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works) in the north. This
was nearly 3 kilometers (2 mi) northwest of the planned hypocenter; the blast was
confined to the Urakami Valley and a major portion of the city was protected by the
intervening hills.[64] The resulting explosion had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kilotons of
TNT (88 TJ).[65] The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 degrees Celsius
(4,200 K, 7,000 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1005 km/h (624 mph).
Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000.[66][67][68] Total
deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000.[5] At least eight known POWs died
from the bombing and as many as 13 POWs may have died:

• One British Commonwealth citizen[69][70][71][72][73] died in the bombing.

• Seven Dutch POWs (two names known)[74] died in the bombing.
• At least two POWs reportedly died postwar from cancer thought to have been
caused by the atomic bomb.[75][76]

A photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken in January 1946 by a U.S.

Marine photographer.

The radius of total destruction was about a mile (1–2 km), followed by fires across the
northern portion of the city to two miles (3 km) south of the bomb.[77][78]

One American POW, Joe Kieyoomia, was in Nagasaki at the time of the bombing but
survived, reportedly having been shielded from the effects of the bomb by the concrete
walls of his cell.[79]

An unknown number of survivors from the Hiroshima bombing had made their way to
Nagasaki, where they were bombed again.[80][81]

The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, the factory that manufactured the type 91
torpedoes released in Pearl Harbor, was destroyed in the blast.[82]

There is also a peace monument and Bell of Nagasaki in the Kokura.[83]

Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of
August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[84] On August 10,
Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a
memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he
wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather
after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the
comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the
President."[84] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the
bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had
begun. "The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not
capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or
whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in
one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we
are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest
assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer
the tactical use rather than other use."[84]

Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation

Main articles: Surrender of Japan and Occupation of Japan

Until August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On
that day Hirohito ordered Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet
Union has declared war against us." He then held an Imperial conference during which he
authorized minister Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one
condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the
prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler."[85]

On August 10, the Japanese government presented a letter of protest for the atomic
bombings to the government of the United States via the government of Switzerland.[86]
On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender.
One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the
kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "of course."[87] As the Allied
terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito
recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the
Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the
surrender.

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the
“ power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we
continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and
obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total
extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to
atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This
is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the
Joint Declaration of the Powers. ”
In his "Rescript to the soldiers and sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact
of the Soviet invasion and his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.
During the year after the bombing, approximately 40,000 U.S. troops occupied
Hiroshima, while Nagasaki was occupied by 27,000 troops.

Depiction and public response

Anti-Japanese propaganda poster depicting the Bataan Death March, 1944, US

During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels
of U.S. society; according to the UK embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the
Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin".[88] Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than
human, e.g. monkeys, were common.[88] A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be
done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of the extermination of
all Japanese: men, women, and children.[89][90]

News of the atomic bombing were greeted enthusiastically in the U.S.; a poll in Fortune
magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans wishing that more
atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan.[91] The initial positive response was
supported by the imagery presented to the public (mainly the powerful mushroom cloud)
and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses incinerated by the blast as well as
photos of maimed survivors.[91] As an example, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing
Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the results. The film
crew's work resulted in a three-hour documentary entitled The Effects of the Atomic
Bombs Against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The documentary included images from
hospitals showing the human effects of the bomb; it showed burned out buildings and
cars, and rows of skulls and bones on the ground. When sent to the U.S., it was
mentioned widely in the U.S. press, then quietly suppressed and never shown. It was
classified "top secret" for the next 22 years.[92] During this time in America, it was a
common practice for editors to keep graphic images of death out of films, magazines and
newspapers.[93][94]

Imagery of the atomic bombings was suppressed in Japan during the occupation[95]
although some Japanese magazines had managed to publish images before the Allied
occupation troops took control. The Allied occupation forces enforced censorship on
anything "that might, directly or by inference, disturb public tranquility", and pictures of
the effects on people on the ground were deemed inflammatory. A likely reason for the
banning was that the images depicting burn victims and funeral pyres evoked similarities
to the widely circulated images taken in liberated Nazi concentration camps.[96]

Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission

In the spring of 1948, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established
in accordance with a presidential directive from Harry S. Truman to the National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council to conduct investigations of the late
effects of radiation among the survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Among the casualties were found many unintended victims, including Allied POWs,
Korean and Chinese laborers, students from Malaya on scholarships, and some 3,200
Japanese American citizens.[97]

One of the early studies conducted by the ABCC was on the outcome of pregnancies
occurring in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in a control city, Kure located 18 miles (29
km) south from Hiroshima, in order to discern the conditions and outcomes related to
radiation exposure. One author has claimed that the ABCC refused to provide medical
treatment to the survivors for better research results.[98] In 1975, the Radiation Effects
Research Foundation was created to assume the responsibilities of ABCC.[99]

Hibakusha
Main article: Hibakusha

Panoramic view of the monument marking the hypocenter, or ground zero, of the atomic
bomb explosion over Nagasaki.
Citizens of Hiroshima walk by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, the closest building to
have survived the city's atomic bombing.

The survivors of the bombings are called hibakusha (被爆者?), a Japanese word that
literally translates to "explosion-affected people." As of March 31, 2010, 227,565
surviving hibakusha were recognized by the Japanese government, most living in Japan.
[100]
The government of Japan recognizes about 1% of these as having illnesses caused by
radiation.[101] The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the
hibakusha who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the
anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2010, the memorials record the names of
more than 420,000 deceased hibakusha; 269,446 in Hiroshima[102] and 152,276 in
Nagasaki.[103]

Double survivors

People who suffered the effects of both bombings are known as nijū hibakusha in Japan.
On March 24, 2009, the Japanese government officially recognized Tsutomu Yamaguchi
(1916–2010) as a double hibakusha. He was confirmed to be 3 kilometers from ground
zero in Hiroshima on a business trip when Little Boy was detonated. He was seriously
burnt on his left side and spent the night in Hiroshima. He arrived at his home city of
Nagasaki on August 8, a day before Fat Man was dropped, and he was exposed to
residual radiation while searching for his relatives. He was the first officially recognised
survivor of both bombings.[104] Tsutomu Yamaguchi died on January 4, 2010, after a
battle with stomach cancer at the age of 93.[105] The 2006 documentary Twice Survived:
The Doubly Atomic Bombed of Hiroshima and Nagasaki documented 165 nijū hibakusha,
and was screened at the United Nations.[106]

Korean survivors

The cenotaph for Korean atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima

During the war, Japan brought many Korean conscripts to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki
to work as forced labor.[107] According to recent estimates, about 20,000 Koreans were
killed in Hiroshima and about 2,000 died in Nagasaki. It is estimated that one in seven of
the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry.[8] A Korean prince of the Joseon Dynasty,
Yi Wu, was also killed by the Hiroshima bombing.[108] For many years, Koreans had a
difficult time fighting for recognition as atomic bomb victims and were denied health
benefits. However, most issues have been addressed in recent years through lawsuits.[109]

Debate over bombings

Main article: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Further information: Operation Downfall
The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a
“ psychological weapon. ”
—Former U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, 1947[110]

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them
has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker wrote
in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the
use of the bomb seems certain to continue." Walker noted that "The fundamental issue
that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the
bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to
the United States."[11]

Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender,
preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan: Kyūshū
was to be invaded in October 1945 and Honshū five months later. Some estimate Allied
forces would have suffered 1 million casualties in such a scenario, while Japanese
casualties would have been in the millions.[111] Although thousands of Japanese were
taken prisoner,[112] most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.[113] One
scholar estimated that kamikaze attacks could have sunk or damaged a full third of the
invasion armada destined for Kyūshū.[112]

Those who oppose the bombings, among them many US military leaders as well as ex-
president Herbert Hoover argue that it was simply an extension of the already fierce
conventional bombing campaign[114] and this together with the sea blockade and the
collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment) would also have led
to a Japanese surrender, therefore, the atomic bombings were militarily unnecessary,[12]
inherently immoral, an experiment on human beings, a demonstration of power to the rest
of the world, especially the Soviet Union, setting a terrible example and harming the
reputation of the United States in the rest of the world, describing the outcome of such a
bombing would have been sufficient to end the war, it was a war crime, or a form of state
terrorism.[citation needed][115]
J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated:
"The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of
Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the
bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."[116]

Legal situation in Japan

Main article: Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State

The Tokyo District Court, while denying a case for damages, stated: [117]

... (b) that the dropping of atomic bombs as an act of hostilities was illegal under the rules
of positive international law (taking both treaty law and customary law into
consideration) then in force... (c) that the dropping of atomic bombs also constituted a
wrongful act on the plane of municipal law, ascribable to the United States and its
President, Mr. Harry S. Truman;

...The aerial bombardment with atomic bombs of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was an illegal act of hostilities according to the rules of international law. It must be
regarded as indiscriminate aerial bombardment of undefended cities, even if it were
directed at military objectives only, inasmuch as it resulted in damage comparable to that
caused by indiscriminate bombardment.