This is completely different than what you initially said.
However the only coup was an attempted coup on the night before Japan surrendered.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Thread starter MapleOne
- Start date
This is completely different than what you initially said.
However the only coup was an attempted coup on the night before Japan surrendered.
Hardly completely different, you might argue about the word advanced, but there was clearly an offer of surrender on the table, prior the use of the nuclear weapons. The terms would have included occupation, disarmament, elimination of militarism, democratic reforms, punishment of war criminals, and the status of the emperor.
Roosevelt held that offer, proffered through British and Soviet intermediaries before the Yalta Conference. You have to ask whether formalizing this on a negotiated.. rather than an 'unconditional' basis.. which is practical terms would really only be in the wording.. was worth setting the precedent of using nuclear weapons and killing 150,000 civilians.
Last edited:
The article I referenced says nothing of the sort:
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb | The Weekly Standard
This declassified document indicates that the US expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf
See also this book
http://mirror.lib.unair.ac.id/bahan/BFOLDER/Books Dec 2009/Five days in August.pdf
Which indicates to me US military planners did not understand what they possessed and that they had underestimated the atomic bomb's power to intimidate.
The Americans and the rest of the world did not truly understood the true implications of Atomic bombs until after seeing pictures of their destructive power, days to weeks after the bombs were dropped. Until then, the atomic bomb was just considered another bomb. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki American leaders and military planners finally realized this was a completely new class of weapon.
Last edited:
So after they tested the bomb in the desert they had no idea what it would do to a city?
When it comes down to an objective look at why the U.S. dropped the bomb you have to start with the fact that not only the Japanese Navy, but the Japanese land and air forces as well had ceased to be capable of offering a credible defense against Allied Forces.
The primary reason was the crippling of the Japanese merchant marine by the American submarine fleet. Japan has few natural resouces, no oil or raw materials to operate its army and war industries, or feed its people. It was essentially defeated prior to the dropping of the A bombs and it only had to be resolved by agreement or capitulation.
But the pro nuclear proponents in the U.S had a pressing reason to drop the Bomb. And that was they were well aware of the developing post war environment between Communism and Capitalism. The U.S. was the only power with nuclear weapons at that time and they wanted no doubt in the minds of prospective enemies that they were capable and willing to use it to advance their cause.
The Cold War would dominate the world for the next 40 years, with all its attendant guerilla wars, coups, assasinations, political persecutions at home, and nuclear brinkmanship.. on both sides.
The primary reason was the crippling of the Japanese merchant marine by the American submarine fleet. Japan has few natural resouces, no oil or raw materials to operate its army and war industries, or feed its people. It was essentially defeated prior to the dropping of the A bombs and it only had to be resolved by agreement or capitulation.
But the pro nuclear proponents in the U.S had a pressing reason to drop the Bomb. And that was they were well aware of the developing post war environment between Communism and Capitalism. The U.S. was the only power with nuclear weapons at that time and they wanted no doubt in the minds of prospective enemies that they were capable and willing to use it to advance their cause.
The Cold War would dominate the world for the next 40 years, with all its attendant guerilla wars, coups, assasinations, political persecutions at home, and nuclear brinkmanship.. on both sides.
Last edited:
When i look at it i see the batles of okinawa and iwo jima were the japanese at the time were done as an effective army still fought. They were isolated but heavily fortified and outnumbered and still killed alot of allies. Even the civilians fought the allies and even with extensive suppout the allies still lost many soliders. If the allies were going to invade the mainland, it would have made the last two battles i mentioned look like skirmishes... Like defeat was immenint from the start of iwo jima but the japanese still fought to the last man practically. The offered a pretty good defensein the face of certain defeat and to invade the mainland would be costly, the nukes were dropped cause the allies didnt want to bleed there nation
Yes that is what I'm saying. They knew in theory what it might do, but until they actually saw the post bomb pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American leaders and military planners seriously underestimated the destructive effect and psychological impact of an Atomic bomb. Looking back, we have the benefit of hindsight and as a result a more accurate perception of Atomic bombs.
I'd say there were other options. Even an atomic bomb that could fit in a rucksack would be devastating enough. Could they not have used smaller atomic bombs, perhaps on the carrier-based planes, to target Japanese fleets?
Mass-production of atomic bombs of even that size would have wiped out the Japanese Navy very quickly. And without a Navy, the Japanese Army would have been able to do no more than defend the Japanese mainland, and the Japanese air force would have been able to defend Japanese waters but not much more than that. The war would essentially have been over once the Japanese fleet would have been wiped out. At least a ship would have been a legitimate military target, and it would still have sent the desired message to the Soviets not to mes with the US. But bombing so many civilians was unacceptable.
Again, this perception is based on hindsight. At the time the Atomic bomb was dropped, few people were predicting a cold or hot war with the Russians. The Russians were our WW II allies, not our enemies. Allied leaders were aware of Soviet military might, but were also aware the Soviets, like the Allies were war weary, eager for peace and the opportunity to rebuild all that was lost during the war.
The main deciding factor to use the bomb, was the same reason why they used other bombs... To convince Japan to accept an unconditional surrender. The Americans never understood how convincing the Atomic bomb would be in achieving this objective. No city had ever been completely destroyed by a single bomb until August 6, 1945. Distant pictures of a mushroom cloud and a crater in the desert did not have the same impact as the pictures of two cities laid in ruins and survivor testimony.
In 1945, the Americans had only two weapon designs. One based on uranium and had a production rate of 1 bomb every couple of months and one based on plutonium and a production rate of about 1 bomb a week. The uranium bomb was simpler and had a low chance of being a dud. The plutonium bomb design was more complex and had a higher chance of being a dud. Both bombs had an explosive equivalent to @20kT.
Hydrogen bombs have been tested up to explosive yields of 50Mt or 2500 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
Many people continue to underestimate the effects of nuclear weapons because their perception is based on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I have a hard time myself scaling up the destruction by a factor of 2500...
Last edited:
Why would the US have needed to invade the mainland? Once the Japanese Fleet would have been destroyed, the threat would have been over. Japanese soldiers abroad such as in Manchuria would have run out of supplies fighting the Chinese while cut off from the mainland. Eventually, with Japan isolated, the US could then have simply offered its friendship if reciprocated by the Japanese. Seeing that the Japanese would have had no real choice other than a permanent cold war with no end in sight, my guess is they'd have accepted it. With the US requiring unconditional surrender, it had created impossible conditions for surrender to such a proud people. By simply offering an end to hostilities, it could have allowed the Japanese to end the war without surrendering and thus save face.
Obviously smaller bombs would have had a higher production rate.As for the design, they could have used the same or similar desing and just build it smaller.
I think there was too much bad blood between the two nations at the time to simply end hostilities...
In that case, we have to say the US was at least partially responsible in requiring Japan to surrender. Face, losing face and saving face were major parts of their culture. When talking about atomic bombs, certainly the US could have toned it down at least a little. Had the US Navy nuked the entire Japanese fleet and then offered the option of a mutual end to hostilities, my guess is the Japanese would have accepted very quickly. They'd have seen how quickly the Navy would have been annihilated, and would not want to then risk any such attack on their soil, and since surrender would not have been required, they could have ended hostilities without losing face. The US could have used a little basic psychology here.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major manufacturing centers. Both manufactured weapons and machinery used by the Japanese military. They were also both the home of several major Japanese military establishments. Those factors alone made them legitimate targets.
And why would the fact that it was an Atomic Bomb make it something more horrible that any other weapon that kills? The United States killed far more people in Tokyo, than it did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And nothing but "conventional" weapons were used on Tokyo.
Every document captured after the war showed that the Japanese government intended to fight to the bitter end. They firmly believed that if they could force the Allies to invade, the casualties would be so high that the Allies would do almost anything to stop them. They were training children as young as 5 years of age to attack soldiers with primitive bamboo spears.
Personally, as a person who put in 10 years on active duty with the US Army (3 of them in atomic Artillery Units), I didn't care what kind of weapon killed me. An atomic weapon was no more feared than a bullet, and less feared than a bayonet, poison gas or bacterial weapons.
There is absolutely nothing about Atomic Weapons that makes them immoral. They are a weapon, a massive weapon, that hopefully will never be used again in this world.
And why would the fact that it was an Atomic Bomb make it something more horrible that any other weapon that kills? The United States killed far more people in Tokyo, than it did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And nothing but "conventional" weapons were used on Tokyo.
Every document captured after the war showed that the Japanese government intended to fight to the bitter end. They firmly believed that if they could force the Allies to invade, the casualties would be so high that the Allies would do almost anything to stop them. They were training children as young as 5 years of age to attack soldiers with primitive bamboo spears.
Personally, as a person who put in 10 years on active duty with the US Army (3 of them in atomic Artillery Units), I didn't care what kind of weapon killed me. An atomic weapon was no more feared than a bullet, and less feared than a bayonet, poison gas or bacterial weapons.
There is absolutely nothing about Atomic Weapons that makes them immoral. They are a weapon, a massive weapon, that hopefully will never be used again in this world.
An atomic bomb the size of a rucksack would have sufficed for such targets. 'Little Boy' was not little at all, if you've ever seen pictures of it. While parts of these cities could have been legitimate targets, the cities as a whole sure as hell were not.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any bombing should be targeted an not random.
So what? Once their fleet would have been destroyed, would they have swum to the US to fight?
If the best fighter in the world is standing across the river from me, and it's an impossible river to cross, and I sunk his boat, he's no longer a threat to me now is he.
So what was the point then? Had the US had nukes designed to sink ships, then the US would merely have needed to warn Japan that any new ship it builds will be sunk.
The Japanese would try once or twice before realizing that the payload of one US carrier-based plane could annihilate a fleet. After that, an amicable ceasefire would have seemed a more than generous offer on the part of the US. Again, was the US expecting the Japanese army to swim to the US?
You are correct, of course, but you will never convince a Yank who thinks their s*#t don't stink. They are like a bunch of lemmings folowing their leader into the ocean. They can't think on their own...
The US warned the japanese alot even in the face of immenent defeat at iwo jima the japanese still fought knowing the outcome was death. One would think the emperor would have thrown the towel in then but that never happened
Even something this size mass produced and carried y carrier-based planes would have been more than enough to destroy any new Japanese Navy ship built. And to destroy fleets, maybe something the size of a standard conventional bomb carried by carrier-based planes would have been enough to annihilate them.
The technology for tiny atomic bombs was years away.
Besides the Japanese navy was pretty much wiped out near the end of the war as it was.
Targeting population centers was the way that war went for everyone involved.
Thats right man...and we got nukes too and aren't afraid to use them!
First off Japan was a military dictatorship. For all intents and purposes, the Emperor was reduced to a powerless figurehead though granted an important one to the Japanese people.
Secondly, if the police warned bank robbers either to surrender or the bank will be nuked, would saying that they'd given ample warning suffice?
Warning was certainly a good idea, but even that doesn't justify such massive explosions. Small-scale and restricted nuke production would have been more reasonable. Again, with Japan across the sea from the US, the US' only objective should have been to completely obliterate the Japanese fleet and then offer a friendly ceasefire, with threat of constant blockade until then.
Once the Japanese would have seen its fleet completely destroyed, it would certainly have given up, especially seeing that it would have been given a chance to end hostilities while saving face. By not giving Japan a chance to save face, the US had essentially made further hostilities imminent.