[ifearthenight]

In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army.

Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice)

"Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or not worth mentioning"

[_djo_]

I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the primary subject.

[ifearthenight]

Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad.

Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to get me riled up!

One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of anything?

[_djo_]

I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion, it's just that I disagree that the phrase you highlighted was more biased in favour of the US than your suggested edit. In both it is clear that the USAAF dropped the bomb.

The answer to your question is yes, inanimate objects can be responsible for outcomes. On a philosophical level, a rock that comes loose from a cliff face and kills someone driving on the road below is responsible for his death even though there was clearly no intention involved.

In terms of language, it's also common for an inanimate object to be the subject even if it was not the responsible party, i.e. 'the car hit the boy', 'the plane crashed into the tower', 'the house was destroyed by a bomb', etc. In none of those cases was the primary subject the entity which decided to cause the action.

[andrewcooke]

it's a small nitpick, sure, but he(?) is right - it does change the partiality of the sentence.

i didn't notice when i read the text; now that it has been pointed out to me, i find it interesting. thanks, iftn.

[_djo_]

I would argue that while I believe his correction did not change the partiality, a change to the active voice would have been more effective in highlighting the responsibility of the USAAF in destroying Hiroshima.

With that said, there is no contention that the US did not bomb Hiroshima with a nuclear weapon. Would anybody reading any of these suggested phrases really be more or less likely to view the US as being responsible for it?