Opinii

Imi pare rau dar numai versiunea engleza.
Sumar: Comisia condusa de maiorul Seversky n-a vazut nici o diferenta intre efectele bombardamentelor din Hiroshima si Nagasaky si altele bombardate conventional-incendiar si a auzit de ceva zvonuri despre radiatii.

"The principle verifiable evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons is the bombing of two cities in Japan in 1945 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The chief inspector of the US Secretary of War for these cities in the aftermath of the bombings was US Army Major Alexander de Seversky. He investigated many bombed cities throughout Japan.
On each occasion, he first conducted an aerial survey followed by a through investigation on the ground, and he detected a similar pattern in every city evidently due to the methods of the bombers as well as the nature of the targets bombed.
He was prepared for and anticipated quite a shock in Hiroshima yet found it to be completely the same as the rest of the cities he had surveyed. There was no bald spot at the centre of the blast.
The metal framework of buildings standing in the middle epicentre of the bomb blast were intact.
Some bricks had been blown out of those in the very centre, but the Hiroshima hospital only a mile away from the center of the blast suffered nothing more than having its windows blown out and no people in the building were even hurt.
The greatest damage was NOT done by the blast but by fire as an after effect which accounted for at least 60,000 of the 200,000 persons who perished according to his report.
Ratty wooden houses of which there were many constituted the main structural damage. Seversky concluded that the bomb had the effect of a large incendiary as most of the damage was caused by fire alone and not by the blast.
He also stated that a great deal of wood remained in the rubble of the main area of the blast indicating that those buildings had not been incinerated by the heat of a blast but were destroyed afterwards by the fire that resulted from the bomb.
He stated that a fleet of 200 B-29's which each dropped a routine load of incendiaries would have accomplished the same thing.
The same applies to Nagasaki. As a matter of fact, the Nagasaki bomb was alleged to have been more powerful.
However, the principle area affected in Hiroshima constituted roughly a four square mile area with the blast in the centre (i.e. roughly a one mile radius around the centre of huts toppled by fires) yet the principle area affected in Nagasaki's allegedly more powerful bomb was only one solitary square mile.
Seversky wondered at why Nagasaki and especally Hiroshima had even been chosen as targets since they had no military value.
They would very easily be destroyed by fire as the majoity of the structures in these two cities were rickety termite eaten poor Japanese wooden houses.
However, they would easily serve the purpose of someone planning to elicit maximum propaganda value for the amount of destruction caused as such structures are easily destroyed by fire.
Major Seversky stated that the effect of one of these so-called atomic bombs dropped on New York City would affect an area much smaller than one of the five main buroughs.
As far as the retort to Seversky's article in the May 1946 issue of Reader's Digest, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES INTERVIEWED CONTESTED SEVERSKY'S DESCRIPTION OF HIROSHIMA OR NAGASAKI OR THE FACTS HE STATED.
They only argued his opinions such as his comparison with New York City and his allegation that the incendiaries of 200 B-29's would have accomplished the same effect.
I invite beast to visit for himself a library and read the results of of Seversky's investigation in the February 1946 issue of Reader's Digest in an article entitled 'Atomic Hysteria' which received a mountain of protest by so-called experts in america who never came any closer than 5000 miles away from Japan and who yet insisted that Seversky's opinions were unfounded.
Do see their reply three months later in the May issue in which the author interviewed many military and scientific authorities in an effort to refute Seversky's article.
(informatie aparuta in 1980, Financial Times)