Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

A different take on the lives saved by the bomb

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by dash rip rock, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    "Maghappy", I have a sneaking suspicion we are sort of arguing at "cross purposes" here over minor alterations in semantics. The Soviets were requiring "concrete" proposals, aims, or offers as late as July 30th, and not getting them from either Sato or Togo. As nothing was being proposed of a concrete nature, it was unlikely that any interference by the Soviets would be forthcoming on the part of the Japanese, nor that any "peace offers" would be moved through the Soviet's "good offices" to their allied partners.

    MacArthur was actually trying to "play-down" the possible casualty costs so as to bolster his own rather inflated ego so he could "lead an even bigger" amphibious mission than Eisenhower had led in Europe. He wasn't informed of the "bombs" until just as they were being readied for use (I think), as he wasn't in the "need to know" circle. At first he condemned the idea, for the above reason, and then attempted to figure out how to use them as a method of making the amphibious landing less difficult.

    I personally wouldn't take anything that flaming ego stated as anything but self-serving.
     
  2. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    IIRC both these scenarios were discussed by the Americans and discarded for the reason I stated, along with this one...

    The psychological/practical issue of - a demonstration at all? What if it failed??? As in technical issues or a "fizzle". You've totally discredited your "only" ultimate lever :p

    And of course - you can't warn the Japanese to expect/watch a demionstration either...for THEN they immediately action their urban evacuation plans and reduce the effectiveness of the Bomb to shock them. What effect does blowing up a basically empty city have? ;)
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Too true, if the thing fizzled you would have provided the Japanese with both the engineering and material for the "bomb". They had some extraordinary nuclear physicists of their own, two (I think) had even studied with Lawrence in California. If we drop a dud, and they recover the thing they would have a leg up, if you drop it over the ocean (as a precaution) and it fizzles, it would be seen as a giant "bluff" and stiffen their already formidable resolve to "fight to the end".

    Then if you give a warning as to which city your are going to use as a "target" what is to stop them from moving POWs into the area. This non-POW nearness was a factor in the choice of Hiroshima as a primary, and Nagasaki later. There was a fear that there were POWs at the Kokura Arsenal site, but since it was cloud cover obscured in the 9th, Nagasaki was the alternative.
     
  4. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    Your first point is equally as valid or invalid if a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima full of people or on a deserted island somewhere else.

    Your second point - if the bomb worked but the city was evacuated, the realisation of the potential for destruction it had, could have had at least as much impact as the actual loss of life caused.

    Just because someone isn't dead, does not mean that the means of their potential death is any less comprehensible. People would have understood what the bomb could do.
     
  5. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    That's what MAD as originally dreamt up and gamed by Rand was - a guaranteed mutual suicide pact....BECAUSE in the late 1940s,1950s and 1960s the vast majority of nuclear weapons were simply far too inaccurate to make "fighting" a war practical.

    Yes you could start it, and go through various escalation levels - but while the miss radii of IRBMs and ICBMs were in 1000s of yards/metres and thus required HUGE overpressures to ensure the destruction of a hardened target somewhere inside its effective radius - even at the other side of the circle of destruction ;) - you couldn't really talk about the tactics of fighting a nuclear war - just about starting it, and hoping the failure rate of very advanced (for the day) technology like rockets didn't render your strike/counterstrike ineffective (didn't the Soviets plan on something like a 30% failure to generate ICBMs?)....

    MAD therefore started becoming ineffective when something began to fill the "accuracy" gap BETWEEN accurate battlefield tactical nuclear weapons and inaccurate IRBMs/ICBMs....like decent IRBMs like the SS20 and Lance in the 1970/80....and eventually the Cruise Missile ;) Which over the years since has led to advances in accuracy that has allowed the Americans to veer away from nuclear munitions towards CONVENTIONAL munitions under "Global Strike"....simply because the ability to drop a large penetrating conventional warhead RIGHT on the very top of a hardened target reduces the need for overpressure back down to levels that can be achieved by conventional munitions ;)

    If you don't NEED a nuke dropping three miles away on the other side of a city to be big enough to crack a bunker....but instead can steer a Tomahawk down the ventilator...you don't need a nuke, full stop. And you CAN at last plan how to "fight" a strategic exchange, target by target....rather than general area of a target by general area of a target ;)

    You don't need to threaten cities when at last you CAN destroy hardened targets very precisely. When you can threaten to destroy a nation's capacity to make war, rather than just that nation totally - MAD is redundant.
     
  6. Maghappy

    Maghappy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brndirt1, are you suggesting that we're arguing over trifflings and word choice? In a forum?? Is that possible??? My fascination has always been with the decision itself, what factors played into that-- what was known and how could someone, especially a "new" President, weigh that decision. Whether you agree or disagree with his choice, it's an absolutely stunning moment.

    As for MacArthur, I haven't decided what I think about him (I should really learn more). My understanding is that he wasn't informed of the decision until about 72 hours before. I'm not 100% certain that when he responded to Marshall's request for comment on the Kyushu plan, that the 31,000 number was the one in use (I've read it was 50,000 at that point). I can't imagine him dumb enough to lowball an estimate like that, regardless of how egotistical he was.

    As for a fizzled demonstration, Phylo, you wouldn't tell them in advance you were doing it on their homeland. You wouldn't need to. I don't think you need a city-- empty or full-- to demonstrate its power. At Trinity, a blind man claimed to have seen the light from the blast several miles away.
     
  7. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    Except....it wasn't the plutonium bomb that was dropped first - it was Little Man, far more prone by its nature to fizzling than Fat Man.

    And of course you have to tell them you're going to do it - you have to remove EVERY chance of anyone explaining away the biggest explosion that man had ever created up to that date. You have to SAY that "We, the damn'yankees" are going to do this thing, we're going to do it at precisely whatever-o'clock at whatever location so there is NO chance of misunderstanding whatever.

    Remember - you've only got one chance. It's a painfully narrow window of opportunity; IF they cave in, great - but IF they decide to harden their resolve and fight on - then nothing will persaude them away from that and they'll be carrying out the evacuations etc. that will reduce the effectiveness of a subsequent "live" use of the Bomb...

    Hence - no warning; SHOW that you're prepared to make the hard calls, just as mean as your Potsdam Declaration says you are....just as mean as the Japanese themselves could be ;)
     
  8. Maghappy

    Maghappy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dang, that little winking smiley is unnerving. We didn't warn them about Hiroshima, so why would you need to warn for elsewhere on the island? If they ignored the demonstration, which city would they choose to evacuate? We haven't told them where we'd strike for real. Every city? How would they carry out a war then?

    If Little Boy had plopped to the ground without detonating, we would have hurriedly dropped Fat Man to cover up the failure. We didn't have one chance, we had two nukes in the Pacific and a third almost completed back home. It would have been completed if there hadn't been a rush to drop the first. :eek:
     
  9. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    Did you read what I posted on the last page? This was their plan anyway to ameliorate casualties from the conventional firebombing, to evacuate urban populations en masse into the countryside.

    They'd THEN fight the same war they planned to anyway - millions of bamboo spear wielding civvies....doesn't matter WHERE they are, does it? They'll still have to be fought...

    No - a conventional raid to prevent recovery by the Japanese, and press on with plans as...well, planned LOL

    See the thread elsewhere on this!

    But I meant....one chance of impressing them. After that, once the shock wears off - we've either won...or hardened their resolve to fight on as discussed. There aren't actually very many other choices!
     
  10. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    There were 7 more bombs in the pipe line: 1 ready during the 3rd week of August and three each in September and October. The question was not wether the bombs would force capitulation; but, wether the bombs would be dropped as soon as they were ready or if they would be released in conjunction with the invasion of the home islands.

     
  11. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well said, sir.

    Still, the difference in casualties between Pearl Harbor and the two bombs makes this an unfair comparison.

    I realize that creates a no-win situation since there is nothing we can refer to that can compare except for some of the battles on the Eastern Front.
     
  12. dash rip rock

    dash rip rock Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'm afraid I'm going to have to add another rather uninformed opinion into my own thread, but if the Japanese did not immediately surrender after the destruction of Hiroshima, why would anyone think they would have surrendered after a demonstration on an uninhabited area? I know that is hindsight, but I am referring to the modern opinion that a demonstration might have worked.

    Also, if we do tell them that we are going to demonstrate it in a certain area at a certain time, would they not be able to gather their remaining (albeit minimal) anti aircraft resources to possibly shoot down the delivery aircraft, minimal though those chances may have been? I don't believe there is a lot of precedent for giving the enemy advance info on a time and place of attack for them to defend against it, is there?

    We had also destroyed a significant portion of their cities (including Tokyo which certainly was in evidence to the military authorities) by conventional bombing with no indication that they were willing to surrender, so how could we presume at that time, (much less now), that a demonstration of any sort would work, when we couldn't even be sure they would surrender after we had dropped numerous atomic devices in the coming weeks? I still have read no evidence anywhere that the Japanese were seriously attempting to enter into peace negotiations even though a significant portion of their infrastructure had already been destroyed, and cannot give credence to any arguments put forward yet that a demonstration would have done anything whatsoever to shorten the war or avoid the necessity of using the atomic devices on cities themselves.
     
    SymphonicPoet likes this.
  13. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    That point is completely moot. The Japanese chose to attack the US at PH. It was seen by them as a calculated risk. They chose to do it because they wished to have hegemony over all the peoples of Asia, and of their resources. The fact that they paid dearly for that decision should not surprise anyone and it certainly did not surprise them. They even spoke of it prior to attacking us. They knew full well that it could mean the utter and total destruction of Japan.

    Also, your assertion up-thread that the Japanese attempted to surrender with the only stipulation that they keep their Emperor is not accurate. No such offer was ever made prior to the atomic attacks. The only offers made included the Emperor, keeping Manchuko, and the stipulation that any war crimes would be handled by the Japanese themselves.

    Prior to the surrender the team of six Japanese leaders were deadlocked over the question of surrender. That deadlock was finally broken by the Emperor himself late at night after the Nagasaki attack in a meeting convened at the Imperial Palace.
     
  14. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    That is why I added Bataan, Corregidor and Wake to the equation. If you want a greater balance let's go ahead and heap on : Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, Peking et al.
     
  15. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    It may have 'sucked to be them' but then they were authors of their own fate.

    They chose to start a war of aggression.

    They chose to fight that war in a manner that left no room for mercy, or for the conventional rules of modern warfare.

    They chose to continue the fight when they no longer had the means to stop their enemies.

    The Japanese desired an American Invasion so that they could save face and force the US to a peace table on their terms. The US had no obligation to conform to their game plan.
     
  16. Maghappy

    Maghappy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dash Rip Rock,

    The bombs were actually fairly close together in time (Nagasaki was moved up due to the weather). A clear report on Hiroshima did not get back to the Japanese ministers until the 8th. The Japanese leaders were in violent disagreement, which also means in disarray-- which means a decision one way or another would have taken at least a day or more. So we don't really know whether Hiroshima would have been sufficient.

    You don't have to tell them a place and time to demonstrate the bomb's strength, the blast is enough, especially since it would have come from a single plane.

    In terms of whether Japan was seriously attempting to enter into peace talks, that may depend on your personal idea of "serious." The telegrams between the Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo and the Japanese Embassador to Russia (Sato) can be found here (courtesy of Brndirt1). The messages were being intercepted and decoded by us; Stalin and Truman discussed them (rather generally) at Potsdam. They show multiple attempts to enlist Russian assistance. Togo also outlines a pretty bleak assessment of Japan's military capability. Prime Minister Suzuki apparently saw things the same way, as did the Emperor. In June, Hirohito told his cabinet that he wanted them to pursue "concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy," which one might read to mean without consideration of what would happen to him. Soon after, Togo began the telegrams between Togo and Sato began.
     
  17. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    Quite true; after all, some years earlier....hadn't the Americans been able to find and intercept Yamamoto's aircraft? ;)

    Of course you do; you have to tell them those and THEN you have to do it on-time on-target...or else they'll wilfully interpret an hour's delay or however long as proof that whatever your wonderweapon is, it's not fully under your control or direction.

    And when you DO then drop on-time on-target....they are convinced you are the master of whatver it is you've discovered.

    If you don't tell them - then it looks to them as if..."hey, we're going to blow up SOME part of Japan, but we're not really sure where. Or when...!"

    It's about showing you're in command of a weapon system, rather than some indeterminate Act Of God! :D

    Then however, as discussed, you only have to get round the whole issue of "why not use it on a live target, are the white-eyes THAT sqeamish and inferior to us?" etc., etc....

    P.S....on a technical issue -

    Three planes....or so it would have looked like from the ground... ;)
     
  18. Maghappy

    Maghappy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phylo_Roadking,

    Yes, technically three planes-- three planes that the Japanese didn't bother to engage because they were presumed to be weather or spy planes. I think you should take a look at a picture of Hiroshima after the bomb, and then read the description from the Japanese report. Miles of ground incinerated, without a blade of living grass is pretty much how they described it. Japan had also worked on an atomic bomb; they knew what the deal was. They'd have understood it came from a single plane; given a few days there'd have been reports of radiation. No one said, "look at those pansy Americans, too squeamish to drop it on Tokyo proper." You're reminding me of the old Monty Python skit from The Holy Grail.
     
  19. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    The planes had been flying over Japan in small groupings, recon and weather planes for months before August 6th, and the Japanese had such a aviation fuel shortage they didn't even launch planes to attempt to intercept these "small" flights. They hadn't dropped anything in the past except leaflets, so they didn't even pay much attention to the smaller flights.

    Call it what you will, "lulling your opponent" into a sense of false security or whatever, it worked to perfection with the atomics. When the first flight went over Hiroshima doing the weather checks, the air-raid sirens sounded. But when nothing happened, the all clear was sounded just in time to "meet 'Little Boy'".
     
  20. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    My point is not how the japanese thought after the event - BUT it was among the possibilities considered when the Americans were attempting to anticipate how the Japanese could react, when selecting targets etc. - and let it govern their actions accordingly.
     

Share This Page