Other Literature The Thermonuclear Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Essay (Yes, an essay)

The Thermonuclear Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

On August 6th, 1945, at 8:15 AM, the first ever atomic bomb, the ‘Little Boy’, was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by a B-29 Superfortress known as the ‘Enola Gay’. The bomb immediately killed approximately 80,000 people, and almost 55,000 would die in the months and even years to come. Three days later, another B-29 Superfortress dropped the ‘Fat Man’, the second atomic bomb, directly on Nagasaki. It wasn’t as effective, but it still killed around 60,000 people instantly, and more would die later. Why did this happen? The American Millitary committed mass genocide on innocent civilians that had done nothing wrong. America shouldn’t have used nuclear warfare, they should've just destroyed all means of fighting for the Japanese so they couldn’t fight, but that’s another topic entirely.

The atomic bombs should’ve never been dropped on Japan, it really shouldn’t have been dropped at all, as it did all these horrible things to not just the environment and people, but the infrastructure and economy as well.
Of all the possible materials to use in the bombs, they used Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239, some of the most dangerous, radioactive elements to use. “Over the next several years, the program’s scientists worked on producing the key materials for nuclear fission—uranium-235 and plutonium (Pu-239)”
Both Plutonium and Uranium are extremely dangerous, deadly, radioactive substances that, when put into an explosion, throw horrible radioactive waste and radiation everywhere, not just where the bomb hit

The health factors for Japan were huge; the people living in and near Hiroshima at the time had some of their genetic structure literally ripped out and replaced, and some deadly diseases were caused by it. Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims. The radiation caused genetic mutations and reshuffles and mutated the genetic structure of every little thing.
A movement to ban nuclear bombs was launched and A-bomb survivors began taking action requesting national support in order to cover the costs of their medical treatment and for assistance with their living expenses. As a result, the A-bomb Survivors Medical Care Law was enacted in 1956, and enabled survivors to receive health examinations and medical care by using national funds. The act was later amended in 1960, allowing some survivors to receive medical benefits for support with their living expenses

This is just one of the points to this, there’s a whole nother can of worms to open on this topic.
The things that happened to the people and economy were horrible, and not just for Japan.
The bombs themselves cost well over $1,000,000,000, almost $20,000,000,000 Site/Project Then-year Dollars/Constant 1996 Dollars
OAK RIDGE (Total) $1,188,352,000/$13,565,662,000
—K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant $512,166,000/$5,846,644,000
—Y-12 Electromagnetic Plant $477,631,000/$5,452,409,000
—Clinton Engineer Works, HQ and central utilities $155,951,000/$1,780,263,000
—Clinton Laboratories $26,932,000/$307,443,000
—S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant $15,672,000/$178,904,000
HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS $390,124,000/$4,453,470,000
SPECIAL OPERATING MATERIALS $103,369,000/$1,180,011,000
LOS ALAMOS PROJECT $74,055,000/$845,377,000
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT $69,681,000/$795,445,000
GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD $37,255,000/$425,285,000
HEAVY WATER PLANTS1 $26,768,000/$305,571,000
Grand Total $1,889,604,000/ $21,570,821,000
The economic loss for Japan was devastatingly high:
Economic loss refers to the physical property lost (e.g. buildings, machines, equipment, roads, and bridges) and financial assets lost (e.g. cash, deposits, savings, stocks, and securities). Unfortunately, estimating the value of the financial assets that were lost is practically impossible as crucial documents and books were incinerated. However, there are ways to estimate the value of the physical property that was lost.
For example, a survey conducted by the City of Hiroshima revealed that 70,147 out of a total 76,327 buildings including houses, stores, factories, and schools had been totally or partially incinerated or destroyed. This number included 64,000 private homes and 600 factories, allowing us to estimate the amount of damaged furniture, private property, and plant facilities.
According to the Municipal Handbook 1946 edition (1947) published by the City of Hiroshima, the total amount of damage in six categories (private homes, buildings, bridges, roads, private property, and communication facilities) was estimated to have been 763,430,000 yen (at the time). On the other hand, a report published by the Economic Stabilization Board in 1949 estimates the total property damage in Hiroshima City was 695,000,000 yen (at the time). (For reference, the exchange rates for Japanese yen to U.S. dollar was 50 yen/dollar in 1947 (military exchange rate) and 360 yen/dollar in 1949.)
More detailed data on the total losses can be found in Hiroshima, Nagasaki no Genbaku Saigai (1979), jointly edited by Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City. It estimated there was 884,100,000 yen (value as of August 1945) lost. This amount was equivalent to the annual income of 850,000 average Japanese persons at that time—since Japan’s per-capita income in 1944 was 1,044 yen

Well, while it may have been bad for the economy, it did end the war.
Dropping the bombs may have killed lots of people, but it did end the war in Japan for good (so far)
Total Casualties: 135,000/64,000
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Since the bombings, no war has broken out between Japan and America

Even though it did end the war, it still killed a lot of people, and the damage and radiation was horrible.
Economic loss refers to the physical property lost (e.g. buildings, machines, equipment, roads, and bridges) and financial assets lost (e.g. cash, deposits, savings, stocks, and securities). Unfortunately, estimating the value of the financial assets that were lost is practically impossible as crucial documents and books were incinerated. However, there are ways to estimate the value of the physical property that was lost.
For example, a survey conducted by the City of Hiroshima revealed that 70,147 out of a total 76,327 buildings including houses, stores, factories, and schools had been totally or partially incinerated or destroyed. This number included 64,000 private homes and 600 factories, allowing us to estimate the amount of damaged furniture, private property, and plant facilities.
According to the Municipal Handbook 1946 edition (1947) published by the City of Hiroshima, the total amount of damage in six categories (private homes, buildings, bridges, roads, private property, and communication facilities) was estimated to have been 763,430,000 yen (at the time). On the other hand, a report published by the Economic Stabilization Board in 1949 estimates the total property damage in Hiroshima City was 695,000,000 yen (at the time). (For reference, the exchange rates for Japanese yen to U.S. dollar was 50 yen/dollar in 1947 (military exchange rate) and 360 yen/dollar in 1949.)
More detailed data on the total losses can be found in Hiroshima, Nagasaki no Genbaku Saigai (1979), jointly edited by Hiroshima City and Nagasaki City. It estimated there was 884,100,000 yen (value as of August 1945) lost. This amount was equivalent to the annual income of 850,000 average Japanese persons at that time—since Japan’s per-capita income in 1944 was 1,044 yen.

All of the info listed above is the exact reason why America, or any other country shouldn’t do this ever again. It killed so many people, it did so many horrible things, and it was the American Military's fault. This needs to be prevented from happening again, because if it does, it could mean the end of a country.
 
- Essays require a thesis statement.

- Essays should, academically, be written to be neutral in tone, showing no bias to either side of a case being examined. This requires reporting the viewpoints of both sides, instead of solely arguing for one side against the other.

- Furthermore, when examining history it is imperative to understand the conditions under which the events expounded upon took place, as well as the reasoning for why it was done. This information should also be included in the paper.

- While adding statistical information to a paper is fine, giant walls of statistical information, especially without a scale reference point, is to be avoided. These should either be reduced to the most important points in the lists, or should have the relevant information be compiled into a generic category.

- Duplicate information is best removed prior to submission.

- Lastly, an essay is more impactful when it does not attempt to give the reader a conclusion.


Overall, your essay has potential, but it is held back by the points mentioned in my remarks listed above. Still, I would consider it good for a student of your age grade. Good work.
 
- Essays require a thesis statement.

- Essays should, academically, be written to be neutral in tone, showing no bias to either side of a case being examined. This requires reporting the viewpoints of both sides, instead of solely arguing for one side against the other.

- Furthermore, when examining history it is imperative to understand the conditions under which the events expounded upon took place, as well as the reasoning for why it was done. This information should also be included in the paper.

- While adding statistical information to a paper is fine, giant walls of statistical information, especially without a scale reference point, is to be avoided. These should either be reduced to the most important points in the lists, or should have the relevant information be compiled into a generic category.

- Duplicate information is best removed prior to submission.

- Lastly, an essay is more impactful when it does not attempt to give the reader a conclusion.


Overall, your essay has potential, but it is held back by the points mentioned in my remarks listed above. Still, I would consider it good for a student of your age grade. Good work.
while i agree with you on many of these points, i would recommend asking the author if they are open to constructive criticism before making suggestions
(also good job lapis, it was entertaining)
 
Last edited:
while i agree with you on many of these points, i would recommend asking the author if they are open to constructive criticism before making suggestions
(also good job lapis, it was entertaining)
...That would likely have been a good idea, one that, of course, escaped my notice. I believe I went on "autopilot" as the trite saying goes.

To hypothetically ask a counter question, if one is not interested in criticism, why would a person post something publicly? Criticism is not something to be detested, but rather, means that something is very good.

There is no point to criticizing a work that is unsalvageable, but it is useful to detail what is preventing a work that is, in its current state, good or great, but could be exemplary were its minor problems corrected.

Minded, criticism -can- be caustic, so it should be used with care, so as to not douse the enthusiasm of the author of a work. In other words, criticism should generally be used with, and after, hearty approbation of the work the author is being praised for. Something that I should have made it a point to do before criticizing, but had not remembered at the time of my original comment. For that I most sincerely apologize, and even though it does not make up for, or excuse my blunder in this instance, I promise that I will not forget this information again in the future.
 
...That would likely have been a good idea, one that, of course, escaped my notice. I believe I went on "autopilot" as the trite saying goes.

To hypothetically ask a counter question, if one is not interested in criticism, why would a person post something publicly? Criticism is not something to be detested, but rather, means that something is very good.

There is no point to criticizing a work that is unsalvageable, but it is useful to detail what is preventing a work that is, in its current state, good or great, but could be exemplary were its minor problems corrected.

Minded, criticism -can- be caustic, so it should be used with care, so as to not douse the enthusiasm of the author of a work. In other words, criticism should generally be used with, and after, hearty approbation of the work the author is being praised for. Something that I should have made it a point to do before criticizing, but had not remembered at the time of my original comment. For that I most sincerely apologize, and even though it does not make up for, or excuse my blunder in this instance, I promise that I will not forget this information again in the future.
i believe if someone does share their work on a public platform, they are openly accepting all feedback in doing so. i was recommending it so that no one gets offended, if they do not want criticism. (i don’t mean to imply your criticism came across unfriendly or unjustified, it’s just that some may get offended easily about works they put a lot of effort into)
 
Back
Top Bottom