It seems almost certain from the various reports that the greatest total number of deaths were those occurring immediately after the bombing.
The causes of many of the deaths can only be surmised, and of course many persons near the center of explosion suffered fatal injuries from more than one of the bomb effects. The proper order of importance for possible causes of death is: burns, mechanical injury, and gamma radiation.
Early estimates by the Japanese are shown in D below:. The Manhattan Engineer District's best available figures are: TABLE A: Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki Pre-raid population , , Dead 66, 39, Injured 69, 25, Total Casualties , 64, The relation of total casualties to distance from X, the center of damage and point directly under the air-burst explosion of the bomb, is of great importance in evaluating the casualty-producing effect of the bombs.
This relationship for the total population of Nagasaki is shown in the table below, based on the first-obtained casualty figures of the District: TABLE B: Relation of Total Casualties to Distance from X Distance from X, feet Killed Injured Missing Total Casualties Killed per square mile 0 - 1, 7, 1, 9, 24, 1, - 3, 3, 1, 1, 6, 4, 3, - 4, 8, 17, 3, 29, 5, 4, - 6, 11, 28 12, 6, - 9, 9, 17 9, 20 No figure for total pre-raid population at these different distances were available.
A nuclear bomb-seeking country is typically vulnerable to attack. Today, only nine countries own the entirety of the roughly 14, nuclear weapons on Earth.
Two countries account for the rise and fall in the global nuclear stockpile: Russia and the United States. They currently possess 93 percent of all nuclear weapons, with Moscow holding 6, and Washington another 6, which is smaller than the 40, that Russia, then known as the Soviet Union, had in the s and the roughly 30, the US had in the mids through mids.
During the Cold War, each side built up its arsenal in a bid to protect itself from the other. Having the ability to attack any major city or strategic military position with a massive bomb, the thinking went, would make the cost of war so high that no one would want to fight. But two developments in particular led to the precipitous drop, Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology, told me.
First, Russia and the US signed a slew of treaties from the s onward to reduce and cap parts of their nuclear programs. Second, both sides learned to hit targets with extreme precision. That negated the need for so many bombs to obliterate a target.
Still, every country has more than enough weapons to cause suffering on a scale never seen in human history. The question, then, is not just who might actually use the weapons they own, but how?
For example, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could likely order one without any checks on his authority. The Russian military could respond in kind if troops noted a loss of communication with Putin and it confirmed nuclear detonations elsewhere in the country, Podvig added. Still, he says Moscow would only respond to being attacked. And if Trump decided to attack, say, North Korea with a nuclear bomb, it would be hard to stop him from doing so because he has complete authority over the launching process.
In the heat of battle, the US military might detect an incoming nuclear attack from North Korea and the president could decide to respond with a similar strike. Either way, the president is the one who ultimately decides to put the process of launching a nuclear strike in motion — but he still has a few steps to complete. The president is the sole decision-maker, but he would consult with civilian and military advisers before he issues the order to launch a nuclear weapon.
The president can include whomever else he wants in the conversation. He would almost certainly consult Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in that conversation as well. If any of the advisers felt such an attack would be illegal — like if Trump simply wanted to nuke Pyongyang despite no apparent threat — they could advise the president against going ahead with the strike. Either way, if Hyten refused to follow the order, Trump could fire him and replace him with someone who would carry it out.
Depending on the plan chosen by the president, the command will go to US crews operating the submarines carrying nuclear missiles, warplanes that can drop nuclear bombs, or troops overseeing intercontinental ballistic missiles on land. The launch crews receive the plan and prepare for attack. This involves unlocking various safes, entering a series of codes, and turning keys to launch the missiles. It could take as little as five minutes for intercontinental ballistic missiles to launch from the time the president officially orders a strike.
Missiles launched from submarines take about 15 minutes. Those that have nuclear weapons, many have argued , will never use them. They disagree wildly as to what the next nuclear use might look like or how it might happen, but they almost unanimously cite the same three risks.
The potential nuclear conflict between the United States and North Korea worries most experts — and likely most people on Earth. That makes sense: Trump and Kim, the North Korean premier, spent most of threatening to bomb each other with nuclear weapons. Kim actually gained a missile capable enough of reaching the entirety of the United States, although questions remain about whether it could make it all the way with a warhead on top and detonate.
None of that may even be the worst part :. Bruce Klingner, a year veteran of the CIA who spent years studying North Korea, told me that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had stood by in as the US methodically built up the forces it used to invade the country — and oust Hussein — the following year. In effect, any attempt to overthrow the Kim regime would prompt North Korea to launch nukes at the United States.
Washington would almost certainly respond in kind, leading to one of the worst wars in world history. Few experts discounted the idea that the US and Russia could yet engage in a nuclear war despite a decades-long standoff. Here are just two examples: In September , a missile attack system made it seem like the US had launched weapons at the Soviet Union. One man, Soviet Lt. Moscow put its nuclear arsenal on high alert, but ultimately, neither side came to nuclear blows.
The first is the most obvious: Moscow just has so many nuclear weapons. Russia is the only country that could match the US bomb-for-bomb in any conflict. The longer Moscow has its weapons, the thinking goes, the higher the chance it uses them on the US — or vice versa. The second reason is the most troublesome: Washington and Moscow may be on a collision course. If that happens, the US would be treaty-bound to defend the Baltic country, almost assuredly setting up a shooting war with Moscow.
Experts disagree on what would happen next. Others say Russia would use the weapons only if its forces are on the brink of defeat. In other words, they say Russia would only use nukes in retaliation or to avoid certain extinction. Washington, of course, would likely respond with its own nuclear strikes after Moscow dropped its bombs. India and Pakistan have gone to war four times since , when Britain partitioned what had been a single colony into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.
The worry today, though, is that a fifth conflict could go nuclear. After decades of testing, India officially became a nuclear power in Islamabad , which had started a uranium enrichment program in the s, soon joined New Delhi in the nuclear club. But the opportunity keeps presenting itself. Each side claims the other has violated an ongoing ceasefire in the contested, but India-administered, Kashmir region.
The region continues to be roiled by violence; for instance, six people were killed in separate instances on September He himself had come to have some doubts as a result of various inconsistencies in official reports. Also he had seen the Ford assembly line in operation and knew that Japan could not match America in war production. But none of the soldiers had any inkling of the true situation until one night, at ten-thirty, his regiment was called to hear the reading of the surrender proclamation.
D id the atomic bomb bring about the end of the war? That it would do so was the calculated gamble and hope of Mr. Stimson, General Marshall, and their associates. The facts are these.
On July 26, , the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.
On the basis of these facts, I cannot believe that, without the atomic bomb, the surrender would have come without a great deal more of costly struggle and bloodshed. Exactly what role the atomic bomb played will always allow some scope for conjecture.
A survey has shown that it did not have much immediate effect on the common people far from the two bombed cities; they knew little or nothing of it. The even more disastrous conventional bombing of Tokyo and other cities had not brought the people into the mood to surrender. The evidence points to a combination of factors. These elements, however, were not powerful enough to sway the situation against the dominating Army organization, backed by the profiteering industrialists, the peasants, and the ignorant masses.
With dread prospect of a deluge of these terrible bombs and no possibility of preventing them, the argument for surrender was made convincing. This I believe to be the true picture of the effect of the atomic bomb in bringing the war to a sudden end, with Japan's unconditional surrender. If the atomic bomb had not been used , evidence like that I have cited points to the practical certainty that there would have been many more months of death and destruction on an enormous scale.
Also the early timing of its use was fortunate for a reason which could not have been anticipated. If the invasion plans had proceeded as scheduled, October, , would have seen Okinawa covered with airplanes and its harbors crowded with landing craft poised for the attack.
The typhoon which struck Okinawa in that month would have wrecked the invasion plans with a military disaster comparable to Pearl Harbor. These are some of the facts which lead those who know them, and especially those who had to base decisions on them, to feel that there is much delusion and wishful thinking among those after-the-event strategists who now deplore the use of the atomic bomb on the ground that its use was inhuman or that it was unnecessary because Japan was already beaten.
And it was not one atomic bomb, or two, which brought surrender; it was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more , that was effective. If bombers could wreak such destruction on Tokyo, what will bombers, each carrying an atomic bomb, do to the City of Tomorrow?
0コメント