In one to two paragraphs, compare and contrast the source you described in your initial post with the one described by your peer. Are the two sources’ theses or arguments compatible? Do they use the same or different primary sources? Is one source more reliable, in your estimation, than the other? How do these two sources, combined, add to what you know about the research topic?
‘What were the other options to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why were these options not pursued? Looking at this article, it is evident that the author takes a social lens. The author addresses the question of alternatives because the atomic bombings of that time have continued to remain the most controversial decisions in the history of planet earth. The fact that the bombings caused lots of death, the author looks at the various consequences of the bombings from a social perspective. How were the people affected psychologically, economically, politically, physically and otherwise? It is also clear from this article that the bombings on Japan compared to other nuclear technology bombings were founded on the social world and not political world. The bombings were very complex and revolved around a variety of social issues in a bid to end the Second World War. ‘there were so many other available options for scientists including clarifying an unconditional surrender terms, waiting for soviet entry, invasion of Japan and a continued naval blocking and withholding of necessary suppliers. This article takes a social lens because in as much as there were so many practical alternatives available, they only settled for what would cost human lives and the number of deaths and casualties is what the author uses to form a robust debate.
peer 1 Brendan
The secondary source article that I read was “Atomic bomb injuries among survivors in Hiroshima.” I chose this because I knew about the development of the atomic bomb but not so much about the effects on human life. This article had a very scientific lense and was very clear in their documentation of injuries in regards to distance of the center of the explosion. There was no focus whatsoever about the people themselves, the government, or the economy of the cities, merely that the people affected were another marker to be tallied on their analysis.
“A recent semiannual report of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (4) states that “1,009 individuals surviving under 1,000 meters and 9,191 between 999 and 1,499 meters were located during the Japanese national census in 1950.”
“The data were based on histories and interviews obtained by physicians of the Joint Army-Navy Commission which investigated the medical effects of the atomic bombs in Japan within a few months after the explosions.”
Reynolds, M. L., & Lynch, F. X. (1955). Atomic Bomb Injuries among Survivors in Hiroshima. Public Health Reports (1896-1970), 70(3), 261-270. doi:10.2307/4589041
peeer 2 gerald
I chose the “Atomic Bomb Injuries Among Survivors in Hiroshima.” I don't think this fits into any lens as it is simply stating facts regarding what type of injuries suffered depending on the locations of each victim. According to the article, “An analysis has been made of the clinical histories of 5,136 injured persons and interviews with 1,207 uninjured persons exposed to the bomb.” Let me say that I think it's admirable that people allowed themselves to be interviewed at all. When I first started reading the article, I thought that if that was me, I would want nothing to do with people wanting to learn more about my experiences that day. But as I read further, I realized that maybe these people felt that if they told their stories about the catastrophic effects the bomb had on their lives, maybe it would convince people to never use this weapon again. I found this article different than others that describe that day because it gives detailed data regarding the injuries sustained by the people of Hiroshima. Most of the information I have read just lists numbers but not what's behind those numbers. For example, I had no idea that only, “Three types of injury were encountered in the survivors interviewed……mechanical….radiation…and burns.” The article goes into great detail describing the differences in injuries depending on the types of structures the people were in at the time of the blast or whether they were outside. It also describes injuries based on distance from the center of the blast. To be honest, I usually find this sort of article boring but as I read it, all I thought about were these poor souls and what they must have went through. I can't even imagine and even writing this now makes me sad that there was a time when people felt this was the best option to end the war. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, I want to research more to form that opinion, but it's just sad that so many innocent people lost their lives because the people in charge couldn't agree that living in peace is the best option.