Well, I sort of thought the line spoke for itself! Of course, they are imagining a multi-party nuclear war on a much larger scale than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, with multi-megaton weapons, fallout, and a likely total (if temporary) loss of centralized authority capable of mounting a relief effort.
Well, I sort of thought the line spoke for itself! Of course, they are imagining a multi-party nuclear war on a much larger scale than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, with multi-megaton weapons, fallout, and a likely total (if temporary) loss of centralized authority capable of mounting a relief effort.
The DCPA *was* interested in the survivor accounts at Hiroshima, but *only* inasmuch as it gave insights into how to be better survivors. So after discussing building fires in a section called "Some Japanese Experiences" (!), they conclude, "If one assumes that Americans can do what the unsuspecting residents of Hiroshima did, self-help measures by shelter fire-guard teams appear to be effective." A section on "What Happened at Hiroshima" discusses the impact exclusively in terms of casualty-causing effects. So they were interested in the people at Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki), but primarily as "case studies" and often case studies in "what to avoid." John Hersey it ain't, but that is hardly any surprise, given the source!
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)
Well, I sort of thought the line spoke for itself! Of course, they are imagining a multi-party nuclear war on a much larger scale than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, with multi-megaton weapons, fallout, and a likely total (if temporary) loss of centralized authority capable of mounting a relief effort.
The DCPA *was* interested in the survivor accounts at Hiroshima, but *only* inasmuch as it gave insights into how to be better survivors. So after discussing building fires in a section called "Some Japanese Experiences" (!), they conclude, "If one assumes that Americans can do what the unsuspecting residents of Hiroshima did, self-help measures by shelter fire-guard teams appear to be effective." A section on "What Happened at Hiroshima" discusses the impact exclusively in terms of casualty-causing effects. So they were interested in the people at Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki), but primarily as "case studies" and often case studies in "what to avoid." John Hersey it ain't, but that is hardly any surprise, given the source!
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
One a different note, I hope you write some time soon on how the powers that be are "adjusting" their thinking in light of the revival of catastrophic climate disruption studies since 2000. My own thinking on this is reflected in a recent Liberation Day Countdown blog: https://aaron-tovish.medium.com/liberation-day-minus-7700-log-10-the-fatal-flaw-in-nuclear-deterrence-269eac47ef9b .
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)