In the book Hiroshima by John Hersey, there is a character named Dr. Terufumi Sasaki he is a surgeon working at a hospital. Dr. Terufumi would always take risks because he took care of patients without having the papers to officially be allowed to help people. But when the city is suffering as bad as they were, worse than any city in the world up to now people have to do what they have to do in order to help the kids, elders, and other people who are begging for help. Knowing that he was the only doctor that survived or didn’t get injured he had too much more than he was used to, Dr. Terufumi was a very caring physician. He would work longer hours than what he was used to, and that was 19 hours until he could not work anymore.
At the beginning of the book, Hiroshima John Hersey begins talking about Mrs. Hatsuyo Nakamura and her kids and they were left under piles of wood and tiles. The way John describes this passage makes the reader get in the shoes of the mom because as a mother you are always worried for your kids and this day for Mrs. Hatsuyo Nakamura was no different in fact it was worse. One quote in the journal entry that really caught my attention was “ Mrs. Nakamura cleared a hole above the child and began to pull her arm. “Itai! It hurts!” Yaeko cried. Mrs. Nakamura shouted “ there’s no time now to say whether it hurts or not,” and yanked her whimpering daughter up.” This quote stood out to me because it showed how much Yaeko was suffering under the big piles of wood and tiles, but her mom was just trying to get her out of the situation but it did hurt Yaeko as much as it hurt Mrs. Nakamura. Not every mom is going through these situations that the parents from Hiroshima did so it was a very touching quote that John Hersey included. “ Then she freed Mieko. The children were filthy and bruised, but none of them had a single cut or scratch.” This passage inferred the relief that Mrs. Nakamura had because her children didn’t have a single cut or scratch but they did have some bruises. She was very lucky that her children weren’t badly injured or it would’ve been much worse because she would’ve had to take them to the closest hospital but the hospitals already had thousands of people there. It was a struggle to find medical help because there were very few doctors that were healthy because most of them were too injured to help.
In the middle of the book, Dr. Sasaki is working up to 19 hours at the Red Cross Hospital as bodies constantly keep coming. After the Hiroshima bombing, most of the doctors were either dead or injured so that left the city with only around six doctors and they had thousands of people to take care of in limited spaces with limited nurses. “Dr. Sasaki, who had one seventeen-hour sleep at his home on the third night, had ever since then rested only about six hours a night, on a mat at the hospital; he had lost 20 pounds from his very small body” was a quote that caught my attention because it showed the condition the doctors had to be in. Dr. Sasaki had only slept once and he slept on a mat which could be the most uncomfortable place possible, but they had no other option but to keep working and not sleep because there were people to help. When John Hersey said that Dr. Sasaki had lost twenty pounds that showed me that he has had no time to even eat and practically killed himself, risking his body. This passage really shows the risk doctors were willing to take in order to save other people.
At the end of the book, Dr. Y. Hiraiwa and his were buried under a house that just collapsed. In this part of the book, John Hersey shows the relationship between the people and the country of Japan because it shows that many Japanese are willing to work endlessly for the country after the bombing. “Both of 47 them could not move an inch under tremendously heavy pressure. And the house already caught fire. His son said, “Father, we can do nothing except make our mind up to consecrate our lives for the country”. Once they were under the broken building the son of Dr. Y. Hiraiwa said there was nothing to do now that they were badly injured but to consecrate their lives to the country, which means they were going to declare their lives to the country. And that is how many of the Japanese felt after the Hiroshima bombing and that is exactly what the country needed from their people, for them not to give up in difficult moments. The bombing did not faze the people of Japan neither did it separate them from each other, it made them stronger despite all the losses they suffered from family members, coworkers, and many other people they knew.
In the book Hiroshima by John Hersey, there was a very important character named Mr. Mazakazu Fujii, he had a very important role in the story of Hiroshima. He was a physician before the bombing but after the explosion, he was terribly injured but he was eager to help the injured. This shows compassion that not many other characters showed because many of the citizens who were wounded could not help, which resulted in very few people being able to assist other people. Before the bombing had his own private hospital, which he spends much of his life helping out the injured and while helping his family. He then takes trips to the United States, he gets and inspired to become an American doctor.
“We can only approach it obliquely, from different angles that get closer to a central understanding but never quite touch it. We can only comprehend asymptotically.” Angelica Chong mentioned in her article on Hiroshima, Redux (Chong, 2016). She questions if we can ever understand atrocity and if we can never truly understand it, should we still be responsible for comprehending it?
John Berger’s essay “Hiroshima” talks about how the atrocity of the Hiroshima bombing should be always remembered and the pain felt by the victims should never be watered down by those in power or even statistical data (2015). He adopted a pathos tone throughout and showed how the victims went through (in a way unnecessary) hell and yet those that created hell for them were putting on a mask of innocence to cover up this evil terrorist act which he felt was not right. He then tried to justify and say that by having those in power try to side-track people into thinking about other ‘related’ issues, they are teaching kids a misrepresented version of history. He felt that it was not right because that breeds ignorance. Ignorance in this case is not bliss as it does not necessarily make you 100% innocent as you think you are. Therefore, it is morally right for us to be responsible for making sense of the hell that the victims went through as best as we can. Why is it then that we have to distance ourselves from that reality[footnoteRef:1] in order to come closer to an understanding of the hell that the victims faced? [1: It being the horror and pain that the victims went through and how evil can never be justified.]
In Richard Tanter’s article, he talked about Wilfred Burchett’s experience as a journalist going to Hiroshima to document the aftermath of what the nuclear bomb did to Hiroshima and the struggles he went through, what he saw during his time in Hiroshima, be it the victims, destruction of the place or the side effects of radiation (Tanter, 2005). He went on to say how an Australian soldier (from the ‘winning side’) was at first fuelled with hatred for the Japanese but after seeing the atrocity of the bomb, “we felt no sense of history or triumph, … only knew shame and guilt … Our hatred for the Japanese was swept away by the enormity of what we had seen” (Tanter, 2005). This proved that they had to move away from the notion of Japan being the bad guy, to come to a realization that the creation of hell in Japan was executed by their own people. They themselves are the evil wearing this mask of innocence. The severity of damage done was too unbelievable, “Hiroshima does not look like a bombed city, but as if a monster steamroller had come by and squashed it out of existence” (Tanter, 2005), that there was nothing left but for them to reflect and feel guilty and responsible for causing such destruction on Hiroshima. It is because of hatred that we tend to distance ourselves. Only then will we be able to unpack the ambiguity of the interpretation of evil to truly see that reality, acknowledging our limitations of only seeing what we want to see.
This limitation was also discussed by Berger who describes evil to be wearing “a mask of innocence”, allowing it to “look beyond (with indifference) that which is before the eyes” (Berger, 2015). By reading the book that was sent to him, Berger was forced to look at the Hiroshima event from a new angle which led to him recognizing how we are limited by what we want to see. This limitation is what enables evil to continue growing.
In George Gerbner’s article, he uses a logos approach to explain Cultivation Theory and the effects it has on people (MEF, 2010). Cultivation Theory revealed how heavy television viewers perceive the world to be scarier than those who are light television viewers as they are more prone to experience Mean World Syndrome (MWS) than those who do not watch as much television. MWS is defined as people viewing the world to be more dangerous than it actually is due to the long-term exposure to violent content that they watch on television (MEF, 2010). He thinks that MWS is a vicious cycle where “heavy exposure seems to have the ability to brutalise and numb” (ChallengingMedia, 2010). This results in the creation of a culture that deems meanness as the norm and leads us to misinterpret the world to be a dangerous place. It is because of this limitation of our perception of things that we tend to distance ourselves. Therefore, in that sense, we are still limiting or allowing the media to limit what we “want” to see.
Gerbner continues by talking about Desensitization, to normalise and accept violence and crimes resulting from the long-term exposure to violence. “A better word for desensitization is brutalization. We become brutalized to human sufferings as the victimization, which means that we have to give up an essential aspect of civilization [footnoteRef:2]” (ChallengingMedia, 2010). Gerbner thinks we desensitize ourselves to reduce our MWS, which “hardens us, making us less compassionate…” (MEF, 2010). Thus, repeated exposure to pain and violence rather than statistics will not necessarily help us to understand the reality that the victims went through. Since we have grown accustomed towards human sufferings, it would just seem natural. And because of this numbness, we tend to distance ourselves. [2: That is to be helpful and empathetic.]
This contradicts what Berger and Burchett have to say as they feel that giving numbers, instead of focusing on the horror the victims went through, tends to distract us from the details of the bomb dropping and from feeling for the victims. Berger felt that people had to not look at numbers but the pain that the victims had to go through (Berger, 2015), watching other people around them die instantaneously or slowly as radiation side effects kicked in within a few days or years from the time the bomb was dropped. Hence, the only way is to hear them tell their stories or see their drawings of the hell that they were put through. That is their[footnoteRef:3] way of distancing themselves from the notion that they were “taught” to make sense of hell in Hiroshima. [3: The people that was mentioned by Berger, not the victims.]
Burchett further elaborates how this gives evil an opportunity to direct our attention to other seemingly related issues to the matter, invoking a sense of outrage. This sense of outrage leads to two outcomes, “The face of horror, the reaction which has now been mostly suppressed, forces us to comprehend the reality of what happened” and “The second reaction, unfortunately, distances us from that reality” (Berger, 2015). Therefore, people had to first understand and be able to see the effects of what the atomic bomb did to Hiroshima. The process of understanding and seeing is an act of distancing themselves from that reality.
Berger concludes that “evil is relative and therefore under certain circumstances justifiable” but in the case of Hiroshima, evil cannot be justified here. It is only when people “look beyond or away” can they judge whether evil can be justified (Berger, 2015).
Most importantly, Tanter feels that the dropping of the nuclear bomb was not justifiable. Such an incident should be evaluated from both sides in order to tell who evil truly is. Burchett shows that evil portrayed Japan as the enemy so that we would alienate and hate them “an alienation experienced as hatred, fear and a sundering of any possibility of communion or fellow feeling” (Tanter, 2005), which would help justify their reasoning for dropping the bomb. But the atrocity of the damage done to Hiroshima overrides the negative portrayal of Japan during the war, which awakens our empathy towards others, despite the prior hostility expressed to them.
Gerbner says that the most prevalent consequence of MWS is the “sense of victimization of a sense of vulnerability of a sense of risk” (ChallengingMedia, 2010). This misrepresentation of the real world that people see on their television creates an irrational perception of the world is a bad place, and is “essentially image-driven, that speak action in any language which is definitely led by violence” (MEF, 2010). Such storytelling could spark guilt in those that were responsible which in turn would lead to action being taken. So even though the catastrophe (could have been prevented) happened and resulted in disastrous effects on the victims, people could have been motivated to do something. Evidence that proved this doing nothing was how a man was caught on CCTV punching another man to the ground, who was knocked out, and for 19 minutes there was no one stopped to help the man who had been knocked out despite how there were passers-by who saw what happened but did not do anything. “The consequent of regular viewing television is to normalise unhealthy and violent behaviour” (ChallengingMedia, 2010). This shows the dangers of masking evil with innocence, they could not see the reality[footnoteRef:4] that evil was being carried out at that moment – ignorance. As mentioned above, ignorance does not necessarily make you 100% innocent. Ignorance in a way is a choice we subconsciously must make, just as Burchett mentioned alienation, it was a choice people of that time made as well. What they choose to do has consequences and they must be responsible for it at the end of the day. Whether their choice indirectly contributes to the reality that victims went through or if it was justifiable really depends on how one understands this reality. [4: The reality of them not doing anything.]
People distance themselves from reality as it helps them deal with unpleasant experiences such as guilt and moral responsibility. To do that, they have to use their adaptive self-reflection which is responsible for handling difficult emotions positively (Shatz, n.d.). However ultimately, they must be responsible for the acts indirectly caused in order to understand what their victims faced. The three articles showed how people had distanced themselves from reality to try to make sense of the hell that victims went through. By first acknowledging that we are (limited) and trying to see both sides of the story, not just what the media shows, are we heading in the right direction of understanding hell better? To decide if statistical data or showing the atrocity of the matter is a better way to get people to take action can still be argued. And whether their choice for indirectly contributing to the reality that victims went through (not doing anything) or if evil was justifiable really depends on how one understands this reality.
I think that evil is not justifiable for Hiroshima and therefore the only way to better understand what the victims went through is to see the event from a distance – to go far just to come nearer. I agree with Berger that there is an importance in trying to understand the victims struggles. But I do not think that there is a limit to how close we can get to fully understanding the chaos that the victims went through, unlike what Chong had to say at the start of this essay. For me to get a better grasp of an issue, I usually would examine what is causing the issue, whether it is just one or a few clauses; what are the few solutions I can come up with to solve this issue, and which solution would be the most optimal. In that same sense, we need to go the extra mile to distance ourselves from such an atrocious event and see things from different perspectives before coming to a better understanding and conclusion. Only by distancing oneself can you tune out the unpleasant experiences and focus more on what truly matters.
I think the way Berger skewed his article to cater more to our emotions so whatever was written was quite one-sided from a sympathetic point of view for the Japanese. It was good in helping me see the “other” side but not good enough in helping me see the point of view from the US. Therefore, relying solely on empathy as a judgement tool to understand the whole event is not good enough of a reason. Nevertheless, we still need to be responsible for coming closer to understanding the hell that the victims went through. It is possible to fully understand the hell that the victims went through if we are determined to. Because if we do not try our very best, what makes you think that future generations would even bother trying? Who would be doing justice for the victims then?
Bibliography
Berger, J. (2015). Hiroshima. In J. Beger, Hiroshima (pp. 15-20). Boston: Pearson.
ChallengingMedia. (2010, February 18). The Mean World Syndrome – Desensitization & Acceleration (Extra Feature). Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msfu8YCCc8Q
Chong, A. (2016). Hiroshima, Redux. In S. Donatelli, L. V. Dean & A. Parks (Eds.), Mercer Street: A collection of essays from the expository writing program (pp. 219-224). Retrieved from New York, NY: New York University: http://cas.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/casEWP/documents/mercer2016/chonghiroshima.pdf
MEF. (2010). The Mean World Syndrome: Media Violence & the Cultivation of Fear. Retrieved from Media Education Foundation: https://www.mediaed.org/transcripts/Mean-World-Syndrome-Transcript.pdf
Shatz, I. (n.d.). Self-Distancing: What It Is and How You Can Use It to Make Better Decisions. Retrieved from Effectiviology: https://effectiviology.com/self-distancing-rational-decisions/
Tanter, R. (2005). Voice and Silence in the First Nuclear War: Wilfred Burchett. The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus, 1-27.
In August 1925, the atomic bomb, which had been ironically called “Little Boy” was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, leaving at least eighty thousand people dead instantaneously. The total number of casualties (people, who died of injuries and radiation) ranges from 90000 to 140000.
Main body
The question arises of how such a terrible thing could ever happen because it simply cannot be justified in any possible way. Now it seems to be just a horrible nightmare or something entirely inconceivable. However, we have to admit that there were some reasons for Truman to do it. The main purpose of those attacks was to compel Japan to surrender and yield to the Potsdam ultimatum (Misiko 2005, 102).
It must also be mentioned that the sites for bombing were very carefully chosen. There were the following criteria: the explosion must cause considerable damage and demonstrate the whole destructive power of the new weapon, therefore such big cities as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen. Naturally, Hiroshima was of some military and industrial importance but as has already been mentioned, it did not pose any threat to the American forces (Hakim 1995, 89).
The effects of the bombing were devastating; the explosion had a blast equivalent to approximately 13 kilotons of TNT. According to the official records, at least ninety percent of build-in Hiroshima were either destroyed or considerably damaged.
Doctors of the Red Cross mission could not understand what they were dealing with because these symptoms of radiation overdose were almost unknown to them. Dr. Sasaki says that hospitals were teaming with the wounded people, those who managed to survive the short-term effects of the explosion, but after a while, Dr. Sasaki encountered something he had never seen before the effects of radiation. They were blood disorders, vomiting hair shedding. These are the symptoms of leukemia or blood cancer as one may call it. The shortage of supplies and medical instruments also hampered the work of physicians (Hersey 1974, 146). It must be also taken into consideration that the long-term effects of radiation overdose, which was caused by that atomic explosion, are still very noticeable.
After the first bombing President Truman said the following words:” If they do not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth.” His announcement proves that this attack was to scare the Japanese government into surrendering. Moreover, we cannot say that the disasters of the atomic explosion were unknown to the US government because the first nuclear test was carried out in Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16. One of the scientists, who witnessed this event, described it in the following way: “the earth had opened and the skies had split or like the moment of creation when the God said “Let there be light”(Hersey 1974, 147) Thus we may conclude that President Truman did not even try to avert this catastrophe.
Now at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this catastrophe seems to be something impossible something that will never happen to us. However, we cannot disregard the existing dander, because no one is inured against it. It appears that the only way to avert the new Hiroshima or Nagasaki is nuclear disarmament but superpowers are not very inclined to part with this weapon of mass destruction.
Bibliography
Hakim, Joy. A History of US. War, Peace, and all that Jazz. New York: Oxford. University Press, 1995.
Hersey, John. Hiroshima. New York: Random House, 1974.
Mikiso, Hane. Modern Japan: A Historical Survey. Westview Press, 2005.
Japan experienced severe effects from the atomic bomb (A-bomb) which was dropped by the United States in August 1945 on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki cities. Plutonium-type was the kind of bomb which exploded in Hiroshima and contained platinum core bounded by high explosives designed to explode at the same time produced a 22 kilotons explosion. The type of bomb which was dropped in Nagasaki was uranium-type and consisted of 140 pounds of uranium and discharged energy of 12.5 kilotons (Kyōko and Selden 34). These types of radiation are expected by many studies to remain in the environment for even more than 800,000 years and this will affect the generation to come. There was recorded raise of temperature during the explosion which was estimated to be millions degrees centigrade. The fireball that was created a few seconds after the incidence was recorded to be 300,000 degrees centigrade and was very dangerous to the environment and humans.
The first experienced effects of the explosion were blinding lights, followed by a massive wave of heat. Dry flammable objects were burned and all the people who were half a mile from the bombsites died instantaneously. Majority of the buildings were destroyed; even some of the buildings in Nagasaki which were designed to severe earthquakes also collapsed. Some of the water lines were destroyed and it was nearly impossible to stop the fires due to water scarcity. One and half months after the explosion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still experiencing water shortage. In Nagasaki, a small fire together with wind produced a firestorm, causing deaths to the people who survived but were still immobile due to several reasons (Holdstock and Barnaby 4). Some weeks after the bomb explosions, diseases related to the explosions were then noticed and many more deaths were expected within 5 years.
Explosion of the atomic bombs came with severe effects due to some various factors and elements which are caused by the explosion. There were creation of ionization and this Ionizing radiation can be divided into two: photons and particles. Photons consist of x-rays and gamma, while particles consist of neutrons, beta and alpha. These ionizing radiations have great effects on human body where they create compounds which slow down the functions of cell division and metabolism. The extent of effects experienced during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb attacks relied on the chemical form, length, energy, strength, and kind of radiation. Neutrons exposure originates from different sources just like the one which causes x-rays or gamma radiation exposure. Gamma rays frequently go together with the discharge of beta or alpha particles from a nucleus. Nevertheless, exposure to neutrons from the incidence of A-bomb in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is currently thought to have been the sources of just 1-2% of the entire dose of ionizing radiation. It is easier for gamma rays to pass through human body or observed by human organism, hence, forming a radiation risk for the whole human body (Hunter 34). The A-bomb explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki generated high radiations which were reported immediately after the incidence and up to date.
Almost half of those who survived the radiation exposure live on, together with 90 percent of those who were still below 10 years of age at the time of bomb incidence and who are currently going into their cancer prone years. Actually, 75 percent of the cancers caused by A-bomb emission are expected to emerge in around 2025 (Hunter 34). There were immediate deaths of about 100,000 people which reported in Hiroshima and about 200,000 in the long run. While in Nagasaki, around 50,000 people died immediately and between 80,000 and 140,000 people died finally.
Figure 1: the chart indicates the estimated exposure of radiation (in Sieverts, Sv) regarding an individual’s distance from the bomb scene and offers a comparison with other exposures from radiation (Peterson and Abrahamson 15).
Literature Review
Hiroshima and Nagasaki radioactivity after the bombings
Dose from remaining radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are currently far lower than the standard annual dose for radiations happening naturally, 0.001–0.003 Sv. Radioactivity reduced by more than 90% after a week of the bombing incidences and this was below the normal annual dose after 12 months (Peterson and Abrahamson 15). Even if the use of current weapons and particular kind of accidents might be a significant radiation cause, these were just like what happen in Japan bombings. Fallout from current bombs can mainly caused by contact with the soil or direct discharges of radiation from the bombs. The kind of bombs which were used in Japan was apparently lower than today’s standards with discharge of around 600 meters from the Earth surface. The only considerable radiation contact from the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the type of direct neutrons and gamma rays and this was almost instant contact. The neutron elements, which have superior biological impact than gamma rays, were minimal and below 1% (Peterson and Abrahamson 15).
In the year 1950 census in Japan, just around 280,000 individuals reported their frequent exposure to atomic radiation. RERF’s study of population perhaps comprises around 50% of the people who were exposed in around 3,000 meters from the bombing sites. These percentages are not accurate since the survey did not record place of exposure in accordance with the bomb hypocenters (Peterson and Abrahamson 15). A study was done again from the areas which were above 2,500 meters from the bombsites and it was reported that there were minimal exposures. In the year 2000, around 50% were still alive, but above 90% of the people who were exposed when they were 10 years of age were still alive. Projections proposed that by 2025 these ratios will be around 25% and 70% respectively (Peterson and Abrahamson 15).
Early Radiation Effects
If exposed to higher dose content, the primary impacts of the exposure will be killing of tissues and cells in the body. The major symptoms and signs of these great exposures is diarrhea as a result of damaged intestines, decreased blood cells and blood loss due to damage to bone marrow, loss of hair because of damage of hair-roots cells, and impermanent male infertility.
From the reports done soon after the bombing incidence, it is approximated that the distance from the scene where 50% were survivors and 1,000 to 1,300 meters in Hiroshima were also 1,000 to 1,400 meters in Nagasaki. After means of approximation was enhanced, the studies afterwards reported that bone marrow dose upon which 50% of survivors (LD50) were around 3.5 to 4.5 Sv (Bodansky 67). The people who were nearer to the bombing sites had more exposure together with serious effects of heat and detonation, and there is no data on categorization of instant deaths.
The immune organism is as well susceptible to radiation instantaneously following exposure. For those who were exposed to higher quantity of A-bomb radiation, both essential sections of the immune organism (bone marrow and lymphocytes stem cells) were greatly affected and they were damaged. Around 8 weeks after, they were exposed, marrow stem cells improved because there was no more infection. Researches in latest years have reported some long-term effects on the immune organism, although to a great extent lesser than aforementioned (Bodansky 67).
X-Rays, Beta and Gamma Radiation
The atomic bombs which were experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 lead to many people being exposed to dangerous gamma rays. There are accessible estimates of 86,570 survivors of the atomic bomb explosion in Japan who were examined as a section of the Life Span Study (Holdstock and Barnaby 4). There were researches carried out by the Effects Research Foundation examining the continuing effects of contact at the time of the bombing. Quantity of neutron and gamma radiations the colon were approximated for the 86,570 survivors, with the quantity estimates based on protection of the organs by the human body, direction, and location during the bombing incidences (Beringer 480). The total dose to the colon was approximated at 24,500 person-Sv and the maximum dose to the colon was approximated to be greater than 2,000mSv.
Beta burns were greatly seen in the Japan explosion incidence but they were low ionizing radiation which was generated from fallout particles. The biggest particles from the fallout were probably to have high activities since they were dropped almost immediately after the explosion and it is probably that the moment they were in contact to the body or the skin they may have caused localized burns.
Gamma burns were also produced from the explosion and they are able to penetrate deeply into the body leading to equal irradiation in the body instead of just a skin burn. In the situation of entire body, gamma irradiation which resulted from the skin injuries was observed within the periods of explosion exposure to the time of death. This incidence of gamma exposure was one of the causes which led to the increase in number of deaths after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions.
Link to Leukemia
Excess leukemia was one of the first effects which were noticed after some months in some people who were exposed to radiation during the bomb incidences in both cities. This was indicated through the research which was done by some Japanese medical doctors in the end of 1940s. Registration of leukemia and other associated disorders were set up to detect cases. Since leukemia is an uncommon illness, the total sum of leukemia cases from those who survived is rather minimal, although the percentage increase in risk is huge. Leukemia makes up merely around 3 percent of all deaths resulting from cancer, even though it currently makes up around 20% of every excess Life Span Study of deaths resulting from cancer (Lambers 75). Since 1990, there were 175 deaths due to leukemia in 51,115 Life Span Study of people who survived with bone marrow dose of no less than 0.005 Sv. There were 86 deaths in the group which was further than estimated deaths from leukemia; this indicates that 49% of the deaths were caused by radiations (Lambers 75).
Link to Solid Cancers
By around1956, studies carried out established a raise in rates for solid cancers (those excluding leukemia). This increase evidently showed the significant late effects of contact to emission observed in survivors of atomic bomb. Since 1990, 4,560 solid cancer deaths existed in the 51,115 LSS survivors with doses of bone marrow, 0.005 Sv or more, which there were more than 340 solid cancer deaths than what were estimated in the same people who were not exposed, around 8 percent attributable to radiations (Lambers 75). Major excess risks are observed for the majority of main kinds of cancer, comprising cancers of skin, ovary, lungs, liver, and other kinds of cancers. Studies have experience some challenges in providing accurate number of people who have cancer which are related to the radiations since cancer is one of the common disease which affect most people especially the older people.
For the majority of solid cancers, severe contact to radiation in every age raises somebody’s cancer risk throughout his or her life. Since the people who were exposed are currently old, excess rates have raised in reference to backdrop rates, even though rather less fast. In the standard radiation dose of victims in 2,500 meters, which is around 0.2Sv, there is approximation of a 10 percent raise over standard age-precise rates (Lambers 75).
Solid cancers which were associated with A-bomb showed the characteristics listed below:
As the dose increases, the possibility of solid cancer also increases.
There was greater increase in possibility of solid cancer for those children who were exposed at least in the beginning section of the follow-up (Holdstock and Barnaby 5).
There was no reduction in the increase possibility of solid cancers, however remained all through generation. There is a noticeable radiation impact when those exposed are at the age in which there is greater chance of obtaining cancer (Lambers 75).
Figure 2: the epidemiological differences of radiation-related cancer, leukemia and non-cancer illnesses are shown in this graph indicating approximated previous and future radiation-related mortality annually
Non-Cancer Effects of Radiation
Medical examiners carrying out the Adult Health Study, the division of the LSS group which obtains biennial clinical assessments, have evaluated the association between radiation exposure and some of chosen non-cancer disorders. A number of effects due to radiations have been established in the Life Span Study population. In this population, there were numerically major excess risks for non-malignant thyroid, respiratory, digestive, and cardiovascular diseases. Even though means for these effects are not currently unstated, efficient epidemiological examination has reported that these seem to be definite effects of radiation (Cram 54).
Researches which were done to examine radiation effects also concluded that there were observed retardation in pattern of growth for those exposed to the emissions from the bombs in their early years. Early analyses of potential accelerated aging have mainly been displaced by assessment of more precise non-cancer diseases, even though there are still several concerns in generalized aging. Of all the illnesses which are related to aging, such as arthritis, osteoporosis, senile cataract, and arteriosclerosis, the most evidently observed increased risk with emission contact is for arteriosclerosis.
The significant epidemiological distinctions among diseases which as a result of radiation like solid cancer, non-cancer, and leukemia are demonstrated in Figure 2.
Effects of Fetal Exposure
Radiation exposure greatly affects the fetal brains, at least at rather high doses. RERF’s assessment of the effects of radiations in utero study population (around 3,000 people) has indicated a relationship between exposure due to emission and both microcephaly (smaller head size) and mental retardation. Just about 1,200 expectant women are considered to have experienced radiation emissions within 2km from the scenes of bomb explosion, getting a dose of above 0.005 Sv (Hunter 32). Approximately 155 of them obtained doses more than 0.5 Sv. The rate of extreme mental retardation was depending on the survivors’ extent of exposure before they were born at either 2-4 or 5-6 months in the pregnancy period, with effects particularly noticeable in the previous group. School performance and IQ scores was greatly affected by the radiation dose where there were noticeable decrease, this was seen in the utero group after exclusion of brutally mentally retarded kids.
Unhealed scars and Keloids
The people who experienced thermal burns within 1000 to 2000 meters from the bombsites experienced severe flames and direct burns as well as moderate flash burns, which brought about permanent or temporary scar formation. Most of the thermal injuries in the range of 2000 to 3000 meters from the bombsites were flash burns which placed simple scars initially (Bodansky 145). But the flash burns eventually grew by thickening to turn into keloids after 12 to 16 weeks. Therefore, it is considered to be as a result of primary thermal burns. Most of the people who experience this burns had to undergo surgery so as to remove the scars, although, the possibility of the scars to reappear was very high. These scars are still evident in some victims which are still alive.
Chromosome changes
The number of chromosomes in the human body is a constant 46. Chromosome abnormalities were initially observed in the victims of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The studies which were done later showed a high rate of abnormalities in lymphocytes and blood cells in fetuses which experienced huge quantity of radiation within the pregnancy period or immediately after birth. Though chromosome abnormalities raised with superior radiation doses, rate of abnormalities was constantly high at every dose ranges. Even in 1985, chromosome abnormalities in human body cells continued among people who were exposed (Lambers 13).
Environmental Effects
The bombing incidences of August 6 and 9 are considered to have brought about environmental effects, short-tem and long-term effects. The explosion resulted in air pollution from dust elements and radioactive fragments which occupied the air and from the smokes caused by burning structures. Most of the plants and animals died in the explosion or were killed some days after the explosions due to continuous radiations. Radioactive sand blocked boreholes used as sources of drinking water, therefore, leading to water problem which was hard to be solved. There was contamination of surface water, especially through radioactive waste. Farming was also affected where agriculture products were severely destroyed; damaged stalks of rice could be seen from around six miles from the bombsites. In Hiroshima, the effect of bomb were evident within a six miles radius around the town and a one mile radius in Nagasaki (Poolos 76).
Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are located near the oceans and the A-bomb radiations contaminated the water and, hence, killing animals and reduced their populations. These animals moved to other parts of the oceans and to the nearby countries and, later, causing them to breed with unaffected animals resulting in odd cross-breeds which do not have predators and consumed everything, hence, dominating the area. Some of the radioactive particles are left in the soil for many years as they gradually decompose, hence, created soil contamination which makes it hard for crops to grow. These negatively affected the economy of Japan. When there is explosion of atomic bombs in the air, the nearby air is exposed to immense heat, accompanied by comparatively rapid cooling. This setting is ideal for generating nitric oxides, which later enter into ozone layer and decreases the ozone layer’s concentration that are needed for protection from direct rays from the atmosphere, may remain there for a longer time, mostly years. It may spread all over the globe, hence, could harm the tropical forests or the United States, or England. This is actually hazardous since it is awful enough for Japan and it can extend all over if immediate interventions are not done. ‘Nuclear winter’ also occurred due to the explosion, signifying that the atomic detonation brought about adequate fires to produce huge, black clouds in the atmosphere and caused black out for extensive period of time. All of these severe environmental changes affected the economy and the people’s lives since the time of explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Clancey 32).
Induced radioactivity
When there is explosion of atomic bomb, the effects on the immediate environment are destructive. The atomic bomb incidences in Japan presented insight into the immediate and long-term effects of emission and thermonuclear explosion on the surroundings. These explosions created some large areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki uninhabitable due to the continuous ionizing radiation.
Water, soil, and other immediate materials were irradiated in the bombsites. Neutrons absorption by every sort of materials generated new isotopes which later discharged ionizing radiation. Finally, a range of unusual radioactive components were observed in soil, tarmac, and concrete near the bombsites in both cities. Animals and plants were also affected by radiation.
During the A-bomb explosion, platinum in the gadget goes through fission, discharging massive sum of energy. The first explosion generated a blinding flash, then accompanied by excessive heat. Temperature was 300,000 degrees centigrade and this increase in temperature caused massive deaths in the area. An enormously strong, devastating wind is also resulted from the first explosion. In Hiroshima, only a single bomb, 15 kiloton, was dropped in the middle of the city and everything which was inside 1mile radius was entirely damaged (Holdstock and Barnaby 49). The effect of A-bomb on the immediate surroundings is one of the greatest destruction.
Water and Forest Contamination
Radioactive particles may have moved from the bombsites to the other parts and polluted water bodies and this killed animals living in water such as fish. Animals in some parts which were affected by radiations still contain some levels of cesium and studies are claiming that the number may stay the same for a longer time (Lambers 65). The fallout from the explosion of very strong atomic bombs in both cities led to contamination of plants which are in the nearby regions and forests. Some of the hereditary diseases and mutations will exist for along time in humans and animals that were exposed to the radiations. Radiations often affect the plants seeds which may make them infertile or making them unable to reproduce, these have been observed in some parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Due to the location of both cities, radiations produced may have caused severe effects to the reproduction cycle of marine life, for instance the periods of plants flowering which can lead to change in pollination sequence.
Despite the evident and noticeable effects of the atomic bombs which were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of the researchers have been against the conclusion that all health and environmental effects in Japan were only caused by atomic bombs. Some have claimed that earthquakes and floods which often occur in Japan are other major factors which caused these effects. In 1923, there were historical earthquake which was recorded in Japan that induced several environmental and health concerns and issues. Most of the studies are concerned about unsafe radiations which are released by industries for a long time, since Japan is one of the leading manufactures and producers of cars, and other materials (Clancey 56). The tsunami, produced after the strong earthquake, was also responsible for evident deaths of birds and some studies claimed that the same effects may have occurred to humans. Clancey (56) stated that just about 2,000 Layson albatross were covered or drowned by the onslaught of fragments carried by the tsunami.
There was severe earthquake and successive firestorms demolition in the Tokyo, Yokohama region, which destroyed about 700,000 houses. Some people argued that these example of many earthquakes which occur in Japan may have led to some of the detected environmental and health effects. Floods which commonly occur near the oceans and some parts of Japan may contribute to flood-related diseases (Clancey 56). Floods and earthquakes which are common in Japan have contributed to destruction of buildings in addition to deaths. Floods contributed a lot to the pollution of surface waters and also air pollution and explosions which were occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may not be the only causes of the environmental and heath issues which most of the studies support. Some researchers claimed that various studies have overextimated the effects hence influencing their findings (Clancey 56).
Conclusion
Exposure to ionizing radiation brought about two wide classifications of effects, stochastic and deterministic. Deterministic effects comprise losing of blood, skin burning and cataracts and possess a specific threshold dose where the harshness of the effect raises with the rising dose. Stochastic effects comprise genetic and cancer effects and often occur randomly and do not have specific threshold dose. Whereas the likelihood of a stochastic effect rises with dose, there will be no change of harshness of the effect in a person.
It appears almost certain from different assessments that the highest recorded number of deaths were those which took place instantly after the atomic bombs explosions. The causes of deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may only be deduced and certainly several people who were closer to the bombsites experienced severe injuries from two or more effects of the bomb explosion. The effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb attacks can be classified into three main types, burns, mechanical injuries and gamma radiation.
Works Cited
Beringer, Paul. Remington: the science and practice of pharmacy. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005. Print.
Bodansky, David. Nuclear energy: principles, practices, and prospects. New York, NY: Springer, 2004. Print.
Clancey, Gregory. Earthquake nation: the cultural politics of Japanese seismicity, 1868-1930. California: University of California Press, 2006. Print.
Cram, Willies. “Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation.” Commission on Life Sciences (CLS) (1990): 6:65-134. Print.
Holdstock, Douglas and Frank Barnaby. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: retrospect and prospect. New York: Routledg, 1995. Print.
Hunter, david. A Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Print.
Kyōko, Selden and Mark Selden. The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 1989. Print.
Lambers, William. Nuclear Weapons. New York: Springer, 2006. Print.
Peterson, Leif and Seymour Abrahamson. Effects of ionizing radiation. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1998. Print.
Poolos, J. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008. Print.
The debate about the feasibility of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is controversial to this day. Bombing advocates tend to explain their position by arguing that the use of atomic weapons prevented the continuation of World War II and direct incursions, in which, according to statistics, many more people would die (Selden & Selden, 2015). In addition, the refusal of Japanese troops to surrender and Japan’s “all-out war” have also been put forward as arguments in favor of the bombing that stopped the atrocities of the “all-out war” of Japanese soldiers in China and ended the war in general. However, in my opinion, the use of such weapons, even in such conditions, does not justify the United States for several reasons.
First, the use of atomic weapons fundamentally carries with it at the moment the highest degree of barbarism and the grave consequences of its use. The cost of human lives determines the immorality of this weapon and the severe illnesses of the survivors, the high level of radiation at the site of the bombings, and, accordingly, the inability to use this territory for life or anything else. Second, the military necessity of using atomic weapons has not been proven. There is a point of view that Japan’s surrender would be inevitable very shortly. No wonder further agreements of many countries prohibited nuclear weapons since this is a hazardous type of weapon. Many famous personalities interpreted these bombings as crimes against humanity, state terrorism, or war crimes. Even though these episodes made it possible to end the Second World War, they led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including peaceful, unprotected, and uninterested in the war. Any opportunity to decide the outcome of the war in a more relaxed way, the existence of even a slight chance of reducing the number of victims ultimately outweighs the balance in the direction of the action’s illegality. No amount of military action can justify the use of atomic weapons.
Reference
Selden, K. I., & Selden, M. (2015). The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Routledge.
The fact that the bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945 was an incredible crime against humanity is now a well-acknowledged fact. The theme of this historical tragedy was addressed in the unique accounts of the bombing, which were written by Berger, Hardy, and Hersey. These three essays clearly demonstrate how the narration pattern, stylistic devices, and the rhetorical triangle (ethos, logos, and pathos) can make a difference in an essay, strongly impressing the readers, like in Berger’s work or providing objective reports, like in Hersey’s essay.
The essays by Berger, Hardy, and Hersey address the same theme of Hiroshima bombing and clearly demonstrate how the manner of presentation, arguments, and style characteristics can affect the readers’ perception. The authors chose different approaches to support the same assumption that the atomic bombing was a tragedy that should never happen again. For example, Berger argued that it is incredibly important not only to reinsert the events of Hiroshima into the textbooks but also to explain to children the entire meaning of these shocking events and the monstrous crime committed by those who had planned them. Hardy reflected mainly on the events preceding the bombing and described the bombing only in the form of an excerpt from a radio report, expressing different opinions of Americans, justifying or not justifying the bombing. Hersey reported on the destiny of one of the survivors of the Hiroshima bombing and provided only a brief account of the bombing and much more details of its aftermath. Berger and Hardy used first-person narration that strengthened their argumentation.
Hersey, who discussed the life of the actual witness of events, used the third-person narration that made the essay unemotional and least persuasive. Berger intentionally refused to give the statistics (Berger 273). Still, the lack of statistical data in Berger’s essay did not reduce the persuasiveness of his work. Hardy and Hersey gave much more attention to detail and included a number of figures into their essays to support the assumptions. Some of these details are not important for supporting the main ideas but still contribute to the development of the plot lines. Berger used excerpts of the actual witnesses of the bombing to illustrate the scope of the tragedy and made generalizations concerning the horrors of Hiroshima in the historical and global context. Hardy and Hersey, on the other hand, focused mainly on the life stories of their characters, treating Hiroshima tragedy as background.
Berger, who argued for learning an important historical lesson from Hiroshima, narrated from the point of view of a citizen who was not a witness of the bombing, but created the most powerful argumentation by combining the ethos, logos, and pathos. Even though this essay is not a primary source, but rather a collection and analysis of the memoirs of survivors, the narrator demonstrates a profound understanding of the historical context of Hiroshima. Therefore, the speaker is competent, and the ethos component is in its place in Berger’s essay. The competence of the speaker is clear from the opening episode of the essay in which the narrator is asked to give a response to the book on Hiroshima (Berger 269). The narrator easily provides a response, and the readers understand that he is an expert in this field. The logos component of Berger’s rhetoric is also strong. The author provided a comprehensive analysis of several excerpts from the survivors’ memoirs and not only illustrated the suffering of people but also pointed out the causes and aftermath of the tragedy. One of the most important conclusions drawn by Berger was, “This reality includes not only its victims but also its planners and those who support them” (Berger 274).
Importantly, Berger critically evaluated the attitudes of historians and politicians towards the bombing and revealed the truth about them. Thus, Berger admitted that every politician was obliged to say that the Hiroshima bombing should become a historical lesson (Berger 274). However, the term ‘obliged’ clearly demonstrates that the author questions the sincerity of politicians. “Nobody can confront the reality of 6th 1945 without being forced to acknowledge that what happened was evil. It is not a question of opinion or interpretation, but of events” (Berger 274). Finally, one of the most important components used by Berger was pathos, strongly affecting the feelings and emotions of readers. The author used explicit arguments and directly expressed his attitude towards the bombing, using strong epithets and similes. For instance, Berger compares all the depictions of Hiroshima to hell. To emphasize the produced effects, the author even admits that this simile is not hyperbolic at all (Berger 269). Using modern terms, Berger characterizes those who had planned the bombing as terrorists, bitterly stating that modern terrorists can be regarded as humane killers compared to those who decided to drop bombs on Hiroshima. However, the strongest emotional appeals are created by means of details from the witnesses’ memoirs, such as the burnt skin of victims and the small girl bringing water in an empty can for her mother, who is already dead. The final sentence saying that this tragedy cannot be justified is a powerful conclusion for the essay. Therefore, the effective combination of ethos, logos and pathos in Berger’s essay makes it the most powerful one among the three works under analysis.
In contrast to the powerful argumentation line created by Berger, the report offered by Hersey is the weakest one. Even though the author discussed the first-hand experience of the actual victim of Hiroshima, the form of report and the third person narration significantly reduced the persuasiveness of this report. The author depicted the experience of his character Nakamura-san during the bombing in only a few brief sentences: “She lost her mother, brother and a sister to the atomic bomb. Her son and two daughters were buried in rubble when the blast of the bomb flung her house down. In a frenzy, she dug them out alive” (Hersey 133). Therefore, the terrifying tragedy of woman’s life is depicted as a succession of actions. Writing in the ice-cold tone, Hersey did not provide insights into the inner world of the main protagonist and simply included the objective data from her life complicated with radiation sickness. The author did not show the moral suffering of the woman.
Moreover, in one of the final passages, Hersey stated that “The bombing was four decades ago. How far away it seemed!” (Hersey 139). By admitting that the protagonist almost forgot her horrifying experiences, the author reduced the historical significance of the tragedy. The implicit argument that the peacetime life continues is valuable, but it reduces the historical significance of the bombing tragedy. Also, Hersey discussed the social support received by the victims of Hiroshima and completely ignored the political aspects of the historical events. Therefore, the author represented the radiation sickness as the main inconvenience in the life of the main character caused by Hiroshima. Importantly, Hardy and Hersey ended their essays with a similar phrase, admitting that their characters only wanted to go home (Hersey 140; Hardy 373). It shows that both Hardy and Hersey focused on one single destiny of the participant of historical events who did not realize the full scope of the tragedy they had witnessed and were driven mainly by their narrow egoistic interest, to come home.
The peculiarities of narration and reasoning lines of Berger, Hardy and Hersey were shaped by the genres they had chosen. Still, Hardy and Hersey could place more emphasis upon ethos and pathos elements of their essays to make them more persuasive. Thus, Hardy mainly discussed the events preceding the bombing, and included only a few sentences to depict the effects of the bombs on Hiroshima: “Most of the city had been leveled to the ground, and many of its inhabitants disintegrated to dust in an instant by a single bomb. Our scientists have changed the history of the world” (Hardy 371). Whereas the perspective of Americans who “celebrated” the bombing and believed that it could be justified by the noble goals of putting an end to the war was valuable, the main moral message of the author remained unclear. Hardy tried to be realistic when showing the events through the eyes of a young girl who did not fully understand the situation and could not make her own moral choices because nobody asked her if she wanted to participate in developing the bombs. Similarly to Hardy’s essay, the work by Hersey could be stronger if the author had paid more attention to the ethos and pathos of the story. Insights into the inner s of Nakamura-san might strengthen the readers’ impressions from the narration.
As it can be seen from the analysis of these three essays by Berger, Hardy and Hersey addressing the same theme of Hiroshima bombing, the authors can use stylistic devices and logos, ethos and pathos as the elements of the rhetorical triangle to make their reasoning more persuasive and communicate their messages to readers more effectively.
Works Cited
Berger, John. “Hiroshima”. Fields of Reading: Motives for Writing. Ed. Nancy Comley, David Hamilton and Carl Klaus. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. 268 – 275. Print.
Hardy, Zoe Tracy. “What Did You Do in the War, Grandma? A Flashback to August 1945.” Fields of Reading: Motives for Writing. Ed. Nancy Comley, David Hamilton and Carl Klaus. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. 366 – 373. Print.
Hersey, John. “Hatsuyo Nakamura.” Fields of Reading: Motives for Writing. Ed. Nancy Comley, David Hamilton and Carl Klaus. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. 133 – 140. Print.
Hiroshima bombing was the worst among the disasters that have long occurred in the world. The recent decades have seen researchers get concerned about the immense pathways in which the bombing took place. It has also become a matter of concern that numerous bombing events are taking place following that of Hiroshima. The rating of these disasters provides a rationale as to why, though all are cruel, the rate of cruelty differs from one disaster to the next. The discussion in this paper seeks to establish the severity of Hiroshima bombing as compared to other closely related disasters.
The occurrence of Hiroshima bombing and its uniqueness
The famous Hiroshima bombing took place on two occasions experienced in the stages towards the termination of World War II, i.e. August 6, 1945 August 9, 1945, in the city of Hiroshima. The main uniqueness of this bombing stands in the fact that it was only in this bombing that nuclear weapons were utilized in war in history. The bombing action was done by the United States, which was then considered exceptionally armed, and it was in a bid to force Japan to surrender to the allied powers as a sign of defeat, owing to it remaining strong in the world wars.
The use of the nuclear weapons was also facilitated by the fact that the earlier sequential fire bombings did not seem to destabilize the Japanese. The Americans also wanted to devastate the city completely, due to its importance in the foundations. The city was the base for supply of military strength, also as a capital city for the general of the state as well as a center for all industrial developments in Japan. Being a heart for all other cities would lead to the submission as it occurred upon attack. The bombing was done beyond repair and the ruins remain up to date as compared to other disasters where repair is often possible.
The impacts Hiroshima
The impacts of Hiroshima were so severe in comparison with all other disasters. Massive loss of life was experienced upon attack, where more that half the population died. The city had 255, 000 people as per the attack, but 166’000 was eliminated via the disaster, as compared to other disasters where only a proportion is affected. The remaining people are referred to as hibakusha, meaning bomb affected people. Deaths continued to take place due to the rampant radiations that were experienced out of exposure of the industrial centers, ultimately causing fatal necrosis of the remaining population.
Its uniqueness also lies in the fact that Japan surrendered after the attack, a phenomenon that is not common in all the others. Additionally, all the other disasters follow a path that is off firebombing as compared to the Hiroshima that saw the only use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the sequential bombing in two days make the event remain memorable in history as compared to the rest. The destruction beyond repair of the Hiroshima city is also a notable fact since in all the other disasters, repair is always possible.
Conclusion
Hiroshima bombing was the worst among the disasters that have long occurred in the world. The long term and the short-term impacts took a severe from, which is inclusive of massive deaths, the surrendering of Japan to the allied powers as well as the destruction beyond repair. However, research that is more empirical should to establish the impacts of Hiroshima in comparison to other disasters.
America’s conclusion to drop the nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during the war is still an issue of contention among historians. Though many believe that the bombs were necessary to quell and stop the war that had been going on for a long time as well as save the American and Japanese lives. In my opinion, it was not justifiable to use weaponry of such magnitude that for the most part targeted the civilians. This essay argues that it was not acceptable for the United States to target innocent civilians during the war hence the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
To begin with, there were other alternatives that the Americans could have used to realize their mission. Surely, the atomic bombing of the two cities could not have been the only way to get the Japanese to surrender. The other ways that the United States could have attempted before dropping the bombs are that; they should have guaranteed the Japanese that their emperor would remain in power as it was so important to them, thus modifying their requirement of unconditioned surrender.
This is evidenced by the quotes of people such as Eisenhower who said, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Additionally, the United States could have carried further conventional bombing of the cities. These alternatives could have probably brought the war to an end (Tremblay).
The use of atomic bombs was something that could have been avoided, but instead of using diplomacy to resolve the issues, the American leaders preferred to speedily win the war to impress Russia and the rest of the world with their newly found weapon (Bernstein 142-143). Additionally, they also desired to prove to the American citizens that their taxpayers’ money was well spent. If indeed the Americans wanted to end the war then they should have dropped the bomb once and not twice. The bombings resulted in massive civilian fatal injuries and deaths which were not worth the price (Tremblay).
Furthermore, nuclear bombs have far many destructive effects than a mere conventional bomb and the United States should have considered this before using it. The radiation released from the bombs still causes problems for the Japanese to date. Many civilians lost their lives as a result of this exposure. Though it is claimed that many lives were saved due to the United States not invading Japan, it is not justifiable to let innocent civilians die of radiation sicknesses. Nobody deserves this kind of agonizing death caused by radiation. Generally, bombs of such magnitude should hardly be used (Bernstein 148-150).
Conclusion
In my opinion, putting innocent civilians to death with dreadful bombs to fulfill geopolitical goals is not a logical justification, regardless of how much sense it may have made from a military viewpoint. To prevent such an event from happening again in the future, the current generation should consider the use of negotiations in resolving a political conflict. It should be recognized that it is only legal if the military die in the battle and not non-military citizens, except when they are fighting back. The use of atomic bombs should be the last resort as it is fatal to humankind.
War is a terrible thing. During a war, people die, cities and homes are destroyed, and the economy and infrastructure suffer a great deal of damage. Humans commit terrible crimes during a war. In a perfect world, war is never necessary. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and sometimes, taking up arms is required. What constitutes a just war? In what cases can the use of force be considered justified? Humanity has tried to rationalize war and provide moral grounds for conducting war since the dawn of time. The theory of Just War is meant to provide a philosophical framework, upon which the use of military force is justified. The theory rests on three pillars or criteria (Moseley):
Jus ad Bellum: having a just cause, using war as a last resort, having a reasonable chance of succeeding, and proportionality of the ends and the means.
Jus in Bello: the morality of actions committed by both sides during an act of war.
Jus Post Bellum: just treatment of the defeated side after the war is over.
In this paper, we will analyze the events that transpired at Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the prism of Just War theory and apply the available criteria to determine if such actions could be considered just.
Historical Event: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The attacks on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conducted on 6 and 9 August 1945, over a three-day interval (“The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”). The first bomb, called “Little Boy,” was dropped on Hiroshima, resulting in the death of over 180,000 citizens, the overwhelming majority of them civilians. The second bomb caused marginally less damage due to the hilly geography of Nagasaki. It killed over 100,000 people, many of whom died in fires (“Atomic Bomb is Dropped on Nagasaki”). Neither of the cities was a significant military target—they did not hold any strategic value. The city of Hiroshima was protected by fewer than three battalions of soldiers (“Atomic Bomb is Dropped on Hiroshima”).
Was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Just?
To answer this question from the perspective of the Just War Theory, we need to answer all the criteria that the theory offers: jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and jus post Bellum.
Did the United States have a righteous cause for using the bomb? The answer for that is yes; the country was fighting a war it did not start, and the announced causes for the bomb’s use were just (Nichols). Was the use of the bomb a last resort? No, it was not. There was still a possibility of a landing operation, which, however, the United States wanted to avoid. Did this attack have a reasonable chance of success? No, the United States had no way to predict if Japan would surrender after the use of an atomic bomb. Did the end justify the means? This is impossible to tell, as the number of casualties during a landing operation is speculative (“Operation Downfall”).
Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a moral act? No, it was not. Neither of these cities was a valid military target, and the attacks led to the deaths of many Japanese civilians.
Finally, did the United States treat the surrendered side justly? For the most part, they did, as there were no persecutions of innocents. Only war criminals were punished (“Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan, 1945-52”).
Conclusions
From the perspective of the Just War Theory, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not just. While the causes for committing such an act were just, the situation fails to justify itself in almost every other aspect of the theory of Just War. No war can be perfectly justified, as there will always be victims and criminals on either side. However, in this scenario, the number of wrongs was disproportionally large in comparison to the number of rights.
Over one hundred thousand people died, and the six survivors wondered how lucky they were to remain alive. In the book Hiroshima, John Hersey narrates the events of the Hiroshima bomb, which was dropped on Japan by the American Army. John was an American writer who wrote the book to show Japan’s political or national divide in response to the bombing and how people came together as a community to respond to it. By the time the book was first published in 1946, John was 32 years old and had emerged as the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for writing a novel covering World War II. The author doubted that the US had used media propaganda to cover the human suffering caused by the Atomic bomb that they dropped on Hiroshima. Most of the US media showed destroyed houses, but they did not bring a clear implication of the human suffering that had occurred. Thus, a few months after the bomb, the author traveled to Japan to discuss the stories regarding the bombs. This study will highlight the main themes in the book and provide a personal response to the book.
Summary of the book
The US army dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, which had enormous power. A city with over 250,000 people was shuttered, leaving 100,000 people dead and 100,000 others injured (McKinney et al. 158). The book Hiroshima traces some of the survivors of the war and lists two women, two religious people, and two doctors who narrate the events from a few hours before the bomb was dropped up to a few months after the bomb.
Mr. Kiyoshi Tinamito was a reverent in Hiroshima, American educated Methodist pastor and a community leader. During the explosion, he was lucky to be uninjured, and as the fire spread across the city, he aided people to get to safety outside the city (McKinney et al. 160). With the help of his father, Wilhelm Kleinsorge, Tinamito started evacuating people who needed help, consoling those who were wounded, and giving water to those whom the radiation of the bomb had highly dehydrated. Many injured persons were unable to walk, and therefore, he took the role of moving their way from the approaching fire. One of the people that he vividly remembers is Mrs. Nakamura, who had been severely injured with her children. He took them to a neighboring school to avoid the whirlwind and encroaching river tide from sweeping them away.
The other person interviewed was Miss Sasaki Toshiko, who had a leg fracture after the blast. She stayed for a period of weeks without any medical help because the atomic bomb had killed almost half of the population, and the remaining were injured, so there was no one to take care of them (Hersey 46-55). Most of the doctors who survived could not help the general population, which shows the bomb’s devastating effect on the city’s healthcare provision. When healthcare providers cannot provide services during such a catastrophic event, many people whose lives could be saved are likely to die. An example is Dr. Fujii Masakazu, who was badly injured during the bombing and could not help anyone with medical care except himself (Hersey 44-45). This shows the impact bombing has on the healthcare sector.
The author went further to explore the aftermath of the bombing to find the underlying effects of the bomb on citizens. When the city begins to rebuild a few weeks later, people start experiencing the effects of radiation, including feeling nauseated, becoming anemic, and having fever. “Many people who did not die right away came down with nausea, headache, diarrhea, malaise, and fever, which lasted several days” (Hersey 113). It was unclear whether the cause of these symptoms was radiation or nervous shock which resulted from the blast. As much as the city tried to return to normal, this was not possible due to the significant effects of the bombing.
Review of the book
This book significantly impacts the reader because it provides first-hand experience of the immediate effect of the atomic bomb. It provides a detailed outline of how the bombing happened, the general reaction of the people, and how the city was disorganized. For instance, Mrs. Nakamura narrates, “Timbers fell around her as she landed, and a shower of tiles pommelled her; everything became dark, for she was buried. The debris did not cover her deeply. She rose up and freed herself. She heard a child cry, Mother, help me! and saw her youngest—Myeko, the five-year-old—buried up to her breast and unable to move” (Hersey 98). Such narrations help the reader to get a mental picture of how fast the lives of people in Hiroshima changed after the bomb was dropped. Thus, the book allows the reader to get the emotions of the scene when the bomb exploded.
I liked reading the book because it explains almost everything that happened before, during, and after the bombing. Interviewing the survivors provided detailed experience of the people; however, one thing that I feel it missed was highlighting how the surrounding cities were affected by the Atomic bomb. Although much impact was on Hiroshima, the surrounding cities must have had a surge in the number of admitted patients and the severity of their injuries (McKinney et al. 161). In addition, the book fails to highlight the government’s situation immediately when the explosion happened. They should have interviewed some of the high government officials to get the pressure that had been placed on them. However, the book generally provides a good account of the victims and the impact of the bombing on the general city travelers. This implies that I would recommend the book to other people who would love to know the devastating effects of war.
This book has helped me learn how war, especially the atomic bomb, affected the Japanese people. I learned the significant impact of a bomb, including destroying the city, killing many people, and bringing rains, windstorms, and darkness all over Hiroshima (McKinney et al. 158). It led to the healthcare system’s overburdening and a shortage of emergency medication that could be used to treat the patients. However, one of the notable effects of the bomb was how it helped unite society in general. People had to put their differences aside and work together to save the survivors. Due to the un-unified national or political response, the city’s residents had to collaborate as a community and help each other (McKinney et al. 161). The book states, “One feeling they did seem to share, however, was a curious kind of elated community spirit… a pride in the way they and their fellow-survivors had stood up to a dreadful ordeal” (Hersey 35). Another evident theme was the general stoicism of the Japanese people. Despite their suffering and the impact that the bomb brought on them, they did not complain. This shows their commitment and loyalty to their government and sovereignty.
I like the narrative style the author used to write the book. He has presented the people’s experiences without getting himself in the story, making it a masterpiece and trustable. In addition, the author has used quotations and words from the narrators to emphasize the various points he is expressing. Direct quotations help the audience picture themselves in the situation and are emotionally attached to the story. For instance, when children cry for help, he narrates it and writes how they asked for help to ensure the reader can imagine themselves in the story. The author generally has a consistent and well-arranged style of expressing the narrators without altering their message.
Most people have found the book helpful, too, because, according to a comment from one of the reviews, it helps to open people’s eyes to humanity. I find this very true because the book narrates how people helped each other after the atomic bomb exploded. In addition, it shows the ugly side of war and the lack of humanity (Hafner). Another review states that the book provides gruesome details on the bombing, making it interesting and unique (Hafner). I agree with this review because the book highlights minor details of the bombing, which might be ignored by mainstream media but significantly impact society. For instance, the cries of the children asking for help, the dehydration of the people, and how the blast affected their later lives.
Conclusion
The book Hiroshima by John Hersey provides detailed information on the events before, during, and after the atomic bomb. The US army dropped the bomb, killing over 100,000 people and injuring 100,000 more. The book comprises six narrators: two women, two religious leaders, and two healthcare providers. It covers the main events and gives first-hand data from people in Hiroshima during the blast. The main interesting thing about the book is that it provides well a mental image of how the situation was. Although it leaves some aspects, such as how the neighbouring cities were affected by the blast, it covers most of the information on how the victims were affected. In addition, it brings out three important themes, including the power of a bomb, the unity of the community after the bombing, and the stoicism of the Japanese people. The author used a narrative style to avoid indulging himself in the story so that he could provide first-hand information on the people who were affected. This book is a masterpiece, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get unbiased information on the Hiroshima bombing.
Works Cited
Hafner, Katie. “The Reporter Who Revealed the Truth about Hiroshima.” Washington Post, Web.
Hersey, John. Hiroshima: John Hersey. Vintage, Cop, 1985.
McKinney, Katherine E., et al. “Why the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima Would Be Illegal Today.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 76, no. 4, July 2020, pp. 157–65, Web.