This teacher and his students were at the Noboricho Elementary School, located 0.7 mi / 1.1 km from ground zero. The smiles are so human, so genuine, so unpolitical. These are the main victims of war. (To acknowledge this is neither an anti-US, nor a pro-Japanese statement.)
-
Show this thread
-
After the war ended, the US sent scientists to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to learn what they could about the effects of the bombs. Records of school children provided a key dataset for calculating the casualty-distance curves of the atomic bombs.pic.twitter.com/MutDE9Z58E
6 replies 88 retweets 265 likesShow this thread -
It was the child deaths that affected Harry Truman the most, too. When he ordered no further atomic bombing, on August 10th, he invoked "all those kids" as the justification. Throughout his life Truman would refer to the bomb as a killer of "women and children."pic.twitter.com/tsyLF0iar2
6 replies 132 retweets 473 likesShow this thread -
There are many ways to think about the damage caused by the bomb. Structural damage is a potent way to illustrate it. As is the art of survivors. But it's that first photo (which is from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum) that really gets me — all that joy, snuffed out.pic.twitter.com/HI79JhD0UE
3 replies 73 retweets 282 likesShow this thread -
This isn't meant to be a naive statement. "War is hell." I know the causes of WWII, and the reasons why the atomic bombs were seen as an expedient and necessary action by those who were involved in dropping them. I do not absolve the Japanese militarists for their role in this.
2 replies 32 retweets 227 likesShow this thread -
In principle, if you think the bombings were necessary, you should still be able to accommodate that belief without ignoring any of the above. In reality, I find most defenders want to look the other way when it comes to the consequences. To do so is to take an incomplete view.
2 replies 49 retweets 399 likesShow this thread -
Even Truman, the endless defender of the bombings, seemed to harbor deep unhappiness about their collateral damage. In Dec. 1945 he referred to the bomb as "the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings" — he didn't whitewash it.
2 replies 56 retweets 313 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @wellerstein
If Truman was so unhappy about The Bomb and its destructive capabilities, why did his administration go on to develop the immensely more powerful H-bomb? Why spend half a dozen years focused on building & testing weapons INSTEAD of peaceful applications of atomic energy?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Atomicrod
That's not only an interesting question, it's probably the subject of my next book...! :-) Truman didn't see any alternatives. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong. But despite building the things, he took concrete steps to try to prevent them from being used.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I'm confused as to your second statement, but Truman did endorse the (ultimately unsuccessful, arguably flawed) Baruch Plan, which would have resulted in the abolition of atomic weapons. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/baruch-plans …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.