Wednesday, 12 August 2026

The Atom-Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

The Atom-Bombing of  Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 Shrikant G Talageri

 

Today is 12 August 2026. Three days ago was 9th August and three days before that it was 6th August. Hiroshima was atom-bombed on 6 August 1945, and Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. It is interesting that while countless tomes are continuously being written on all kinds of massacres and mass-killings by every possible race, nation and culture of every possible other race, nation and culture, these historical atom-bombings rarely ever figure in these discourses. A chance reference in something I was reading made me curious about certain aspects of this much-camouflaged highlight of the 20th century, and impelled me to highlight these aspects.

 

A question on google: “how many people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb” elicits the answer :

An estimated 150,000 to 246,000 people died from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the end of 1945. This total includes people killed instantly by the blasts and those who died from burns, injuries, or radiation sickness in the following weeks and months. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Breakdown by City

·         Hiroshima: Between 90,000 and 166,000 people died (roughly 70,000 to 80,000 killed instantly or in the first day).

·         Nagasaki: Between 60,000 and 80,000 people died (roughly 40,000 killed instantly or in the first day). [1, 2, 3, 4]

Causes of Death

·         The Blast: Massive shockwaves and collapsing buildings.

·         Firestorms: Intense heat and spreading fires that trapped people in the cities.

·         Radiation: Acute radiation sickness in 1945, followed by an increased risk of cancer and leukemia in the years that followed. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

A question: “how many people were directly affected by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb” elicits the answer:

An estimated 210,000 to over 400,000 people were directly affected by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. This includes roughly 150,000 to 246,000 deaths by the end of 1945, and an equal number of injured survivors who suffered long-term health consequences. [1, 2]

Casualties in Hiroshima

·         Initial Population: Roughly 340,000 to 350,000 people.

·         Deaths: At least 70,000 to 80,000 people died instantly, and the death toll rose to about 140,000 by the end of 1945 due to radiation and burns.

·         Injured: Tens of thousands more suffered severe trauma, burns, and radiation sickness. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Casualties in Nagasaki

·         Initial Population: Roughly 240,000 people.

·         Deaths: Around 40,000 people died instantly, with total deaths reaching roughly 74,000 by the end of 1945.

·         Injured: Over 75,000 people sustained direct injuries from the blast, heat, and radiation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Survivors (Hibakusha)

·         Total Survivors: Approximately 210,000 people survived the immediate blasts with varying degrees of physical and radiation injury.

·         Long-term Impact: Survivors, known as hibakusha, faced decades of increased cancer risks, leukemia, and psychological trauma. Over 500,000 total official victims and survivors have since passed away and been logged into the cities' peace memorials.

 

A question: “has the USA ever expreessed any kind of regrets or apologies for the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Naagasaki” elicits the answer:

The United States has never officially apologized or expressed formal regret for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Successive U.S. administrations have maintained the historical stance that the bombings were militarily necessary to end World War II and prevent a bloody land invasion of Japan. [1, 2]

Presidential Stances and Visits

Barack Obama (2016): Became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima. While he offered heartfelt condolences and acknowledged the immense tragedy of civilian lives lost, he explicitly stated beforehand that he would not issue an apology.


Joe Biden (2023): Visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park during a G7 summit to lay wreaths and meet with survivors, but similarly did not offer any formal apology or question the original wartime decision.

Bill Clinton (1995): Publicly echoed previous administrations by stating that no apology was necessary because the action brought a rapid end to the war. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]


Reasons for the Official Position

·         The Necessity Narrative: The mainstream American perspective maintains that the atomic strikes saved hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives by forcing a swift surrender. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

·         Legal and Financial Concerns: Officials have historically worried that an official apology could open legal pathways for demands of financial compensation or war crime recognitions. [1, 2]

·         Diplomatic Alignment: Both U.S. and Japanese governments have generally preferred to focus on future non-proliferation, reconciliation, and their modern alliance rather than revisiting 1945 wartime judgments. [1, 2]

 

And finally, a question “how does the American public feel about the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nasgasaki” elicits the answer:

Today, American public opinion on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is increasingly divided and nuanced compared to 1945, when approval ratings topped 85 percent. Recent data from the Pew Research Center shows that U.S. adults are roughly split: about a third view the bombings as justified, a third consider them unjustified, and the rest remain unsure or ambivalent.

 

But there is more.

A question “how do the Japanese view the USA” elicits the answer:

Japanese people generally view the United States with a mix of deep cultural fascination, strong strategic alliance, and distinct social reservations. While pop culture and innovation are deeply admired, societal norms and safety issues are often viewed with caution or bewilderment. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Cultural Admiration and Stereotypes

·         Creativity and Freedom: America is widely seen as a free, expressive, and highly inventive nation where people can pursue individual lifestyles. [1, 2]

·         Media Influence: Hollywood movies, music, and fashion shape a trendy, glamorous image of the U.S., particularly among younger generations. [1, 2, 3]

·         Food and Lifestyle: American food is viewed as fun and indulgent, though widely perceived as unhealthy, overly caloric, and massive in portion size. [1]

Social and Behavioral Criticisms

·         Loudness and Directness: Americans are frequently stereotyped as overly forward, loud, or aggressive compared to Japan’s more reserved communication style. [1, 2]

·         Safety Concerns: High rates of violent crime, gun violence, and political polarization make many Japanese view day-to-day life in the U.S. as unstable or unsafe. [1, 2]

·         Work Ethic: Public opinion surveys (such as Pew Research) show that relatively few Japanese associate Americans with traditional traits like being "hardworking" or "honest," viewing them instead through a lens of casual individualism. [1, 2]

Geopolitical and Economic Views

·         Strong Alliance: The U.S.–Japan security treaty is widely recognized as essential for regional stability and defense against rising regional threats. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

·         Confidence in Power: The Japanese public generally has high confidence in American technological, economic, and military leadership, viewing the U.S. as a vital and reliable partner.

See? The atom-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never ever took place at all if one goes by the attitude of the Japanese people themselves: they seem to know nothing about the American role in these bombings, even if somehow they do happen to know about the bombings themselves. Can we then blame all the massacre-historians who fail to take into account these atom-bombings even as they keep track of all other mass-massacres?

 

But then the USA is the country whose original inhabitants were massacred into near-extinction by the presently ruling White inhabitants of the nation. Perhaps the most important festival in the USA is Thanksgiving, which celebrates this mass-massacre.

A question: “is thanksgiving popular in the USA” elicits the answer:

Yes, Thanksgiving is one of the most popular and widely celebrated national holidays in the United States, with surveys showing that roughly 91% of Americans observe it. It takes place on the fourth Thursday of November and is centered on family gatherings, large meals, and expressing gratitude.


Another question “true history of thanksgiving” elicits the following answer:

The traditional myth of Thanksgiving depicts a peaceful 1621 harvest meal between Pilgrims and friendly Native Americans. In reality, the event was a fragile political alliance, far removed from a modern family holiday, and was shaped by centuries of land seizure, conflict, and myth-making. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The 1621 Harvest Event

·         The Context: The Plymouth colonists arrived in 1620 on stolen Wampanoag land, weakened by disease and starvation.

·         The Wampanoag Alliance: Massasoit, leader of the Wampanoag, chose to ally with the English to protect his people against rival tribes.

·         The Real Meal: The three-day autumn feast included local seafood (cod, clams, eel) and venison provided by roughly 90 Wampanoag men who joined the gathering, rather than a formal holiday feast. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

From Harvest to National Holiday

·         Religious "Thanksgivings": Early Puritan colonists regularly declared "days of thanksgiving" to thank God for military victories or successful raids against indigenous villages. [1, 2, 3]

·         The Shift to National Unity: President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863 during the Civil War, hoping to foster national unity. [1, 2, 3, 4]

·         The Myth-making: In the 19th and 20th centuries, writers like Sarah Josepha Hale popularized the romanticized "Pilgrim and Indian" narrative to create a cohesive national origin myth. [1, 2]

Indigenous Perspectives

·         Conflict and Loss: Decades after 1621, broken treaties and expanding colonial power led to devastating conflicts, such as the Pequot War and King Philip's War, resulting in the displacement and death of vast numbers of Native Americans. [1, 2, 3, 5]

·         National Day of Mourning: Since 1970, many Indigenous people and allies have gathered in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the fourth Thursday of November to observe a National Day of Mourning, honoring ancestors and remembering the painful history of colonialism.

There are articles and videos available which give the true gory history of thanksgiving in more vivid detail.

 

But do we have to go into the past? Within the last 100 years, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have had Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and countless other largely-ignored or stonewalled events in different parts of Latin America as well as Asia and Africa. Perhaps everything has become more blatant (but nothing has really changed at all) after the rise of Trump…,

This is the country which projects itself as the beacon of Democracy, Justice, Civil Rights, Human Rights, etc. and bulldozes its way through the world with its all-powerful secret services, spy networks, missionary networks, NGO networks, media goliaths, “academic” monopolies, war-mongering multinational corporations, etc. delivering moral judgments on the activities of other countries and levying punishments and sanctions on them.

Yes, this is Kalyug all right!    


Wednesday, 29 July 2026

A Suggested Electoral Reform: The NOTA Option is Ineffective. Should There Also Be ABH Options?

 

A Suggested Electoral Reform:

 The NOTA Option is Ineffective. Should There Also Be ABH Options?

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

The NOTA (None-of-the-Above) option has been available in elections in India since (as per my understanding) sometime in 2013. It was conceived and introduced because political parties put up powerful criminal candidates in every election (although of course Independent candidates can also, in many areas. be powerful criminals who can challenge and defeat official party candidates). It gives the voter a right to reject all the candidates on the ballot paper on the ground that he/she does not find any of them to be deserving of his/her vote. The optimistic logic behind this introduction was that if all the candidates are undesirable elements (corrupt, criminal, mercenaries, etc.) the voter can reject all of them and express a “None-of-the-Above” vote which would make clear to the parties and individuals standing for election that, in order to win, one must avoid, or refrain from, putting up candidates who are corrupt, criminal or mercenary since they can/will be rejected by the voters.

 

However, in actual point of fact, the NOTA vote is absolutely ineffective: a damp squib or dust-in-the-eyes. Even if, in any particular seat, the NOTA (None-of-the-Above) option gets more votes than every single other candidate, and in fact even if NOTA gets more than 50% of the votes, the actual candidate (of all those standing from that seat) who gets more votes than the others will still be declared elected. Therefore the whole idea of NOTA is nothing but a sick joke played on the voters, unless and until the number or percentage of NOTA votes officially and legally becomes a deciding factor in the result.

Therefore, for NOTA to be effective or to make any sense at all, and to cease to be a sick joke on the voters, the first and most important change that should be made is to compulsorily declare a re-election in any seat where NOTA gets more votes than each of the actual candidates. The second thing would be to ban all the candidates from that seat from standing for re-election (either in the re-election to follow in that particular seat for a particular number of years, or from standing for elections from any other seat as well).

Of course:

1. All this naively assumes that there will be enough aware and concerned voters who would vote NOTA and bring about such a situation.

2. I am not the first to make these suggestions. They have been made umpteen times by various people, and have, every time, been soundly and effectively stonewalled.

Nevertheless, if NOTA is to make any sense, and cease to be regarded as a sick joke on the voters, the above electoral reforms in the matter of NOTA must be implemented.

 

But my intention in writing this article was to suggest another new electoral reform (without, to be honest, being under the faintest bhram or misapprehension that this suggestion will find any support. But, for the record, I am making it nevertheless):

Along with the (reformed) NOTA option, there should also be ABH Options.

In an earlier article of mine, “The Morals/Ethics of Voting (Or Not Voting) In Elections”, I had pointed out the following:

This brings us back to the question: is it the sacred, or at least a patriotic or moral, duty for every true citizen to go and cast his/her vote either for NOTA or for a particular chosen candidate?

I have always viewed this situation as being comparable to a similar “option-full” imaginary situation where one has to choose one of many different options, in the light of the cold and hard fact (obvious to anyone but the most blind, prejudiced or deluded citizen) that all politicians, to different degrees, are cynical and cold-blooded mercenaries who are there in the fray only to grab power and make money. Here is that imaginary situation: a man is going through an isolated jungle and suddenly finds himself confronted by a gang of bandits who have managed to capture a girl (who incidentally is known to the man, being a member of a family with whom he is on very friendly terms) and have decided that one of them will rape her, but cannot come to an agreement as to which of them it should be. They capture this man as well, and decide that he will choose and decide which one of them should be chosen to have the “privilege” to rape her.

What will the man do?

Like the voter in an election, he also has two main options: he can either choose one of them, or simply keep quiet and refuse to choose (knowing that he can do nothing to save the girl, but also determined to not be part of a process of deciding which of them will do the deed).

If he chooses to open his mouth and give his choice, he, again, has four sub-options:

1. He replies: “none of you should rape her”.

2. He replies (referring to one particular one of the bandits): “keep that particular man away from her”, since he has personal knowledge that that particular man is a particularly vicious, brutal and sadistic person (somewhat like the “minor” who raped “Nirbhaya” in the famous Delhi gangrape case who inserted a rod into her and pulled out her intestines).

3. He actually chooses one of the bandits whom he knows to be the least brutal and vicious among them.

4, He actually chooses one of the bandits for some personal reason or due to some personal prejudice or affiliation.

Of course, there is a basic difference in the situation confronting this imaginary man and the situation confronting a person who has to vote in an election: this man knows that if he refuses to reply or exercises the first two of the four above sub-options, he himself will be beaten up or tortured by the bandits, whereas the voter in an election (apart from the option to not vote) has the option to vote NOTA perhaps without having to suffer for his decision, or of course the option to exercise his vote.

This imaginary man, and the person who has to vote in an election, both have to take a decision, and while external pressures can ultimately compel this man to give his “vote”, that compulsion is not present in the case of the voter in an election: he/she still has three options, either (a) to not vote at all, or (b) to vote NOTA, or (c) to cast a valid vote in favor of any one particular candidate.

But while the two situations have the above very basic difference, they do have two things in common: (a) in both cases casting the vote is a responsibility (even though ultimately one single vote hardly ever decides the result) and (b) in both cases casting the vote is a purely personal practical choice (whether done under compulsion or of one’s own will) but under no circumstances is it a moral or ethical duty. How can it be any kind of moral or ethical duty to give sanction or approval to a crook?

Clearly, sometimes a voter’s preference to vote against a particular candidate rather than to vote for a particular candidate (see point 2 highlighted above) may represent his/her true voting choice. In that case, voting NOTA or voting for some other (than the one whom he/she wants to vote against) candidate is not sufficient exercise of his/her right to vote. To fully exercise that right there should also be ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) options one for every single candidate on the ballot list. If the candidate wants to exercise his/her right to vote against (rather than for) a particular candidate on the list, then it should be made possible to cast such a vote and have it affect the result.

 

The principle is the same as in many competitive or analytical tests: if there are 20 questions and the person taking the test gets 18 questions right, and leaves 2 questions unanswered, then the person gets 18 marks out of 20. But if the person gets 18 questions right, and 2 questions wrong, then the person gets 18-2=16 marks out of 20: the wrong answers serve as negative answers reducing the marks.

Likewise, if there are 10 candidates on a ballot list, there should be 20 options: 10 positive options (to vote for a particular candidate) and 10 negative options (to vote against a particular candidate). The number of negative ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) votes received by every particular candidate will be deducted from the number of positive votes received by that candidate and the candidate will be deemed to have received that many votes. Thus if a candidate gets 42000 positive votes and 3500 ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) votes, the candidate will be deemed to have got 38500 votes.

Therefore, in my opinion, the true preferences of the voters can only receive full representation when the ballot paper not only has a NOTA option, but also has one ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) option for each candidate on the ballot list:

1. If a particular candidate gets more votes than all the other options (i.e. than the NOTA tally as well as the tally of each other individual rival candidate, after the ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) votes are deducted from each candidate’s tally) then that particular candidate stands elected.

2. If the NOTA votes are more than those of any individual candidate (after the ABH (Anyone-But-Him/Her) votes are deducted from each candidate’s tally), then there should be a re-election with new candidates. If the same thing happens again, the seat should remain unrepresented at least that is my suggestion in that circumstance.

I simply wanted to put my views on record. I am not interested in entering into nitpicking arguments on this issue.