
Atomic Bomb: Decision – Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945 - Coxa
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
======
evo_9
I went to Hiroshima about 15 years ago with my ex-wife when we toured Japan
(she is Japanese).

I was struck by a few details I'd never heard before growing up in the US:

1) The center of the detonation was a hospital. It's unlikely they tried to
hit the hospital, but the fact remains it was 'ground zero'.

2) A good portion of the hospital's metal frame was still standing and was a
focal point of a monument; grass was growing and generally speaking it didn't
match up with what I expected to see as 'ground zero' (aka a crater, nothing
growing, nothing standing).

3) No active US President has ever visited Hiroshima or the museum there
dedicated to the atomic bombings; Carter visited after he was no longer
president.

If you have a chance to visit Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum it's well worth
a visit. Quite humbling.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museum)

~~~
bjourne
> 3) No active US President has ever visited Hiroshima or the museum there
> dedicated to the atomic bombings; Carter visited after he was no longer
> president.

To add to that, Japanese leaders aren't so keen on visiting the Pearl Harbor
site either. Though their emperor has now spent a visit there:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/4918516...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/4918516/Japanese-
emperor-to-visit-Pearl-Harbor-for-first-time-since-war.html) Neither country
has come up with a formal apology.

~~~
kiiski
Considering all the bad things Japan did during their wars, it seems strange
that you would bring up Pearl Harbor as an equivalent of Hiroshima. Pearl
Harbor was a major military target and almost all casualties there were
military (only ~100 civilians). All in all, the attack seems like a legitimate
military action in every other way, but for the fact there wasn't a formal
declaration of war first (at least as far as I know; I haven't studied the
pacific war that much).

~~~
Someone
That likely was unintentional.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Japan...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Japanese_declaration_of_war):

 _" The attack took place before any formal declaration of war was made by
Japan, but this was not Admiral Yamamoto's intention. He originally stipulated
that the attack should not commence until thirty minutes after Japan had
informed the United States that peace negotiations were at an end.[citation
needed] The Japanese tried to uphold the conventions of war while still
achieving surprise, but the attack began before the notice could be
delivered."_

on the other hand, making the schedule that tight increases the risk that your
message doesn't get delivered in time.

~~~
rdsnsca
From what I have read the declaration of war took longer to decode at the
Japanese Embassy then was expected, and thus was delivered late.

~~~
Someone
Yes, that's the next sentence on that Wikipedia page. However, it also says
the message wasn't that clearly a declaration of war, and adds:

 _" In 1999, however, Takeo Iguchi, a professor of law and international
relations at International Christian University in Tokyo, discovered documents
that pointed to a vigorous debate inside the government over how, and indeed
whether, to notify Washington of Japan's intention to break off negotiations
and start a war, including a December 7 entry in the war diary saying, "our
deceptive diplomacy is steadily proceeding toward success." Of this, Iguchi
said, "The diary shows that the army and navy did not want to give any proper
declaration of war, or indeed prior notice even of the termination of
negotiations ... and they clearly prevailed."_

I don't see how one can conclude that "clearly prevailed". The message
apparently wasn't 100% clear, but there was a message.

Wikipedia also says the U.S. had broken the code used to encrypt that message.
That makes it unlikely that there was a second super-secret message "make sure
the next message arrives late"

(Of course, this is all playing historian from a single Wikipedia page, the
occasional TV program, and a tiny bit of other reading over the years)

~~~
rdsnsca
The problem with Japanese is that it possible to talk all day and say nothing
of substance, its the perfect language for bullshitters (and politicians).

Even a simple sentences can be translated to have may different meanings. This
came up again when the Americans had trouble translating the statements the
Japanese made after the Hiroshima bombing.

------
calibraxis
> 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.

Nice when people are honest enough about their own terrorism. (Like "shock and
awe".)

~~~
rhino369
I think terror bombing was unquestionably terrorism but I'd disagree about
shock and awe. That is just trying to break the enemy armed forces moral with
quick overwhelming strength. The cavalry charge of the modern war.

~~~
calibraxis
We can read about the "shock and awe" doctrine, because such concepts are
carefully developed
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe)):

 _" Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of
appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all
vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of
national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. "_

 _" The second example is 'Hiroshima and Nagasaki' noted earlier. The intent
here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant,
nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing
society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting
directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few
numbers or systems. The employment of this capability against society and its
values, called 'counter-value' in the nuclear deterrent jargon, is massively
destructive strikes directly at the public will of the adversary to resist
and, ideally or theoretically, would instantly or quickly incapacitate that
will over the space of a few hours or days."_

(Disclaimer: I read those quotes in the original context, to guard against
taking them out of context. But I haven't read the whole thing.)

------
dalke
Quite tangential from the content - at the start is "Its transcription and
formatting as an e-text, however, is copyright 1995-1998"

I thought that Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991) established that 'sweat of the
brow doctrine' was not grounds for copyright. Should I assume that the person
who claimed copyright here was incorrect in making the claim?

~~~
tzs
Feist established that there has to be creativity in something for it to be
copyrightable. The level of creativity required is not very high. The Court
said:

    
    
       To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is
       extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.
       The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily,
       as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude,
       humble or obvious" it might be.
    

They also use the phrase "modicum of creativity" to describe the necessary
creative level.

Formatting can have sufficient creativity to qualify for copyright. Such
copyright will only cover the formatting, not the underlying text. If someone
were to take just the text, and format it themselves (by hand or by script),
that _should_ be OK.

Taking his exact e-text formatting? I don't know. Without comparing the
originals to his version, I have no idea if his formatting was obvious and
mechanical, or if it required creativity.

~~~
dalke
Well that was pleasantly easy to find - a copy of the original is at
[http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/6.pdf)
.

I personally don't think there's creativity in this expression.

If there is, then the flip side is that I change the format even slightly then
it's also creative, and the underlying facts are not covered under copyright.

------
Munksgaard
I was slightly curious that Von Neumann appeared at this meeting. The
Wikipedia page about him has some more information[0]. Most notably, it states
that:

    
    
        Von Neumann oversaw computations related to the expected size of the bomb blasts,
        estimated death tolls, and the distance above the ground at which the bombs
        should be detonated for optimum shock wave propagation and thus maximum effect.
        The cultural capital Kyoto, which had been spared the firebombing inflicted
        upon militarily significant target cities like Tokyo in World War II, was
        von Neumann's first choice, a selection seconded by Manhattan Project leader
        General Leslie Groves.
    
    

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Nuclear_weapo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Nuclear_weapons)

~~~
jamespitts
Turing's Cathedral covers von Neumann's wartime work, the IAS machine and the
purpose for which it was built, and many other aspects of his life.

[http://www.amazon.com/Turings-Cathedral-Origins-Digital-
Univ...](http://www.amazon.com/Turings-Cathedral-Origins-Digital-
Universe/dp/1400075998/ref=sr_1_1)?

------
todd8
My dad, who is still alive, was an officer on Okinawa during WWII. He still
has interesting recollections about the war there and the end of the war. They
were all issued gas masks right after the the atom bomb was dropped because of
the fear of escalation to chemical weapons. After hostilities ceased, he had
an opportunity to fly over and see Hiroshima with a handful of other Marines.

As I get older I realize that I don't remember everything he told me about
that time very well anymore. A friend suggested that I hire someone to go
visit with him every week and and help him record his still quite vivid
memories: the great depression, growing up in the dust bowl, traveling around
the country with hobos on trains before the war, WWII, the civil rights
movement, and more.

------
tajen
No mention of Nagasaki.

~~~
BrianEatWorld
I noticed the same thing. According to Wikipedia:

On May 30, Stimson asked Groves to remove Kyoto from the target list, but
Groves pointed to its military and industrial significance.[73] Stimson then
approached President Harry S. Truman about the matter. Truman agreed with
Stimson, and Kyoto was temporarily removed from the target list.[74] Groves
attempted to restore Kyoto to the target list in July, but Stimson remained
adamant.[75][76] On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of
Kyoto.[76] Orders for the attack were issued to General Carl Spaatz on July 25
under the signature of General Thomas T. Handy, the acting Chief of Staff,
since Marshall was at the Potsdam Conference with Truman.[77] That day, Truman
noted in his diary that:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have
told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and
soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the
Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the
world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital
[Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a
purely military one.[78]"

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets)

~~~
hasenj
> This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have
> told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and
> soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.

I find this very ironic ..

------
dekhn
This decision is covered in extensive detail in Making of the Atomic Bomb.

It was deliberated extensively, in a time before governments had lawyers at
every target committee. One of the generals, LeMay, said there was no way to
avoid bombing civilians because the Japanese had "deintegrated" their industry
(his comment was that after bombing a civilian area, they noticed every house
had a drill press still standing after everything else burnt down).

Nagasaki, by the way, was a last-minute addition due to weather at the planned
target for the second bomb.

------
scrumper
Why would salt water ingress cause a nuclear reaction in Little Man?

Also it seems like this was the scariest of the two 'gadgets' to fly with;
those emergency procedures (removing gunpowder!) seem like they probably
wouldn't have much chance of success in a real flight emergency.

------
protomyth
Under section 5. Gadget Jettisoning and Landing: "This operation will
inevitably involve some risks to the base and to the other aircraft parked on
the field."

That has to be one of the most true statements ever to be written.

~~~
tajen
Yeah, no kidding.

On the other hand, the story of the plane is quite funny in terms of details
(see wikipedia). The second gas tank couldn't be refilled, and the armed bomb
couldn't be moved to another plane, so they took off with a half functionnng
device. As famous, the winds drew the smokes over the first target, so they
diverted to another one, and a third one, Nagasaki.

They actually had to save gas while flying. They had to land on another
military stripe on an island. For some reason (I think the stripe was too
short because they were on the wrong landing place, because of the fuel,
because of the disabled tank) they didn't have enough lengh to land, so the
pilots had to stand straight on the brakes. Quite circomvoluted for the most
important bomb in the XXth century.

------
ramgorur
I have seen a lot of WW-II movies with almost all sorts of stories/plots, but
can't find anything on atomic bombing, does anyone know why ?

~~~
yareally
The BBC Oppenheimer miniseries is probably the best I've watched on it, though
it's not just about the atomic bomb in WW2. I've also seen the "Fat Man and
Little Boy" film mentioned by another poster. The later was ok, but it's sort
of fictionalized and the Oppenheimer series covers the same events far more
accurately and at much greater length.

BBC also had a documentary series on nuclear weapons and espionage that was
pretty good.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(miniseries)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_\(miniseries\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Secrets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Secrets)

