[Closed] Why didn't the US drop the A-Bomb in an unpopulated area of Japan as a demo?

Because A) It would not have had any effect, remember it took two detonations over large urban areas to bring the Japanese to the peace table & B) the Americans really wanted to see what the weapons would do.

Because they were seriously cheesed off at the Japs after Pearl Harbour?

Guess they wanted the japanese to know that they meant business? Might have looked a bit limp-wristed nuking the shit out of a couple of farms.

Would have saved a lot of death short term, but doubt it would have had the same effect.

because it wouldn't have demonstrated the incredibly deadly, murdering, killing, human effect of an abomb? Which was the whole point? Abombing cows is boring and pointless.

A bombing cows is boring and pointless.

Speaking from experience Kevevs? I'm intrigued. That's some activity weekend!

From my understanding of the Japanese war machine, a victimless demonstration would probably have been seen as american weakness. Don't forget they failed to surrender after the first one.

Also at the time the Americans had only had very limited amount of weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium, every ounce counted.

Wasn't really quite as much about Japan as was once perceived, current revisions of history are tending to regard it more in terms of the opening salvo in the Cold War.

The potential was demonstrated with the Trinity test a few months before, another 'test' would not have made the point (to either Japan or to Soviet Russia) as conclusively as a 'live' demonstration.

It was also a demo for Stalin and the Russians

Don't forget they failed to surrender after the first one.

That was because of a misunderstanding as to what surrender would entail. The US meant surrender as in stop fighting, Japan took surrender to mean completely give up being Japan.

Stopping fighting [i]would[/i] have meant stopping being Japanese - at least to the Japanese military elite. That elite was responsible for the upkeep of the code of [i]Bushido[/i] where to surrender was worse than death.

If you want to judge events that occured 65 years ago you really need to do some research in to the topic.
If you had, you wouldn't have felt the need to ask a silly question.
It took two bombs and a deal where Horito (considered a god in japan) stay on the throne (the only Axis leader to see old age) before the Japanese would consider a surrender.

are there any unpopulated areas of Japan?
I reckon they should have used Bacup.

Judging by the strange, many-fingered & sloping foreheaded people shuffling around Bacup, who's to say they didn't? 😛

Derek- yeah, it was an outdoor pursuits weekend with Jack Bauer and James Bond. Ever tried glow in the dark steak? 'tis a delicacy.

It was war and there was no political correctness.

Victor dictates and loser obeys. Simple.

Don't want to be killed then don't start it.

😈

Remember this was American bomb aiming. They probably thought they were over Germany.

Think the argument for the first "city" drop is pretty hard to fault, real shock and awe and it worked. But the case for the second strike was, essentially, "to prove we've got more than one bomb". Well, that could have been done in a sea or mountain drop. Once to prove effect, one to prove repeatability.

The timing's key... It obviously would have taken time to take on board what had happened at Hiroshima, it was such an unprecedented effect so an immediate response was really never on the cards. And of course the soviet declaration of war happened in the same window. It's known that Hirohito was considering surrender immediately after the bombing even before that happened. So, it's not convincing to say it was definately the tipping point. And unfortunately the timing of the second bombing was rushed because of a threat of bad weather. Seems to be the prevailing opinion now that the soviet declaration of war would have been enough of a push to end the war, some of the records of the Aug 9th meetings suggest that too.

But, even the biggest handwringers seem to accept now that the 2 nuclear strikes caused less casualties than a conventional bombing campaign and land invasion of japan would have done. Perhaps it could have been done cleaner but it wasn't the atrocity some like to believe. Dresden proves that, you don't need a nuke to kill a city.

To further add to the debate, the US military thought any invasion of Japan would result in a monumental loss of life, both civilian population and Allied Troops. The Bomb was seen as a quick way to end the war.

Too add to Northwinds comments, the US miltary with conventional bombing caused horrific firestorms in Japanese cities because they were mainly built from wood.

I think it was the Nagasaki bomb that was slightly off target, it was supposed to have been dropped at the mouth of two valley's with the blast channelling up each but clouds over the target resulted in the bomb actually only affecting one valley.

I found Dark Sun by Richard Rhodes a fascinating read as it details post war Atomic and Hydrogen bomb development, along with the huge amount of Soviet espionage and warmongering by the US military.

The USSR suddenly declaring war on Japan in August 1945 was likely to have inspired the US to hasten the surrender of Japan. The Red Army would have been in a far better position logistically to invade Japan than the US army.

I think that the suggestions that the A bomb was the first shot of the cold war are pretty accurate.

I quite like to consider the opinion of the people who were there at the time, rather than revisionist historians who can pontificate from the comfort of their armchairs...

Some years ago I heard a man denounce the nuclear bombing of Japan as an obscenity; it was monstrous, barbarous, and no civilised people could even have contemplated it; we should all be thoroughly ashamed of it.

I couldn’t argue with him, or deny the obscenity, monstrosity, and barbarism. I could only ask him questions, such as:

“Where were you when the war ended:”

“In Glasglow.”

“Will you answer a hypothetical question: if it were possible would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?”

He wriggled a good deal, said it wasn’t relevant, or logical, or whatever, but in the end, to do him justice, he admitted that he wouldn’t.

So I asked him: “By what right, then, do you say that Allied lives should have been sacrificed to save the victims of Hiroshima? Because what you’re’ saying is that, while you’re not willing to give your life, Allied soldiers would have given theirs. Mine for one, possibly.”

And as he also commented

[It] is now widely held (or at least it has been widely stated) that the dropping of atomic bombs was unnecessary because the Japanese were ready to give in . I shall say only that I wish those that hold that view had been present to explain the position to the little bastard who came howling out of the thicket near the Sittang, full of spite and fury, in that first week of August. He was half-starved and near naked, and his only weapon was a bamboo stake, but he was in no mood to surrender'.

They saved the life of my late Uncle who, with hundreds of others, was fighting a dirty forgotten war in Borneo. He always said that if those bombs hadn't been dropped none would have made it out alive.

Harsh reality of a disgusting war!

"I quite like to consider the opinion of the people who were there at the time"

Why? Because they obviously had all the facts 😕 Contemporary accounts are always interesting but they're almost always a product of their time. Time gives a better view usually and tends to make for greater objectivity.

Fraser's story seems clever but the fact is few people argue that we should have gone down a route that cost more lives, and so therefore it's completely irrelevant except when dealing with the fanatics.

As he said Northwind

if it were possible would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?

My opinion - the first bomb saved lives. The second as northwind says its harder to be sure

Another aspect people forget is actually more people died in the firebombing that preceded the a bombing than in the A bombing.

When the US began it's campaign to re-take the islands along the path to Japan so they could build runways to bomb mainland Japan, the loss of life was incredible - on both sides. The Japanesse soldiers just woudln't surrender and every square inch of ground was fought for at a terrible loss to human lives. When the Americans considered what would happen if they landed on mainland Japan and calculated the loss of American soldiers it was then decided to drop the bomb and then "save" lives in doing so. I know it sounds very bad and unusual but many many war critics, personel and polictical leaders all agree today that many many thousands of people would have died by invading Japan, way way more than what were lost due to the 2 bombs so maybe, just maybe they died to save a lot more. One of the many many reasons why ANY conflict is not good and innocent people do die unfortunately.

"As he said Northwind, if it were possible would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?"

And as [i]I[/i] said, it is simply not relevant. Nobody with any wits says "We shouldn't have dropped the bombs, we should have gone for the more damaging option instead". They say "Maybe there was a better option". Pretending it's as simple as "2 cities destroyed or a conventional invasion" is just ridiculous really. We're not talking about trading one life for another. Or at least I'm not, some idiots do but they're idiots.

And personally, I wouldn't give my life for anyone, because I am a c**t but that's beside the point.

I have members of my family who would not have survived an invasion of Japan.

I also have Japanese friends in Oz who would never have been born because their fathers would have died in the invasion. Every inch of Japan we took would have been ankle deep in blood if we had to take it by land - they were totally committed to die defending their country.

Did it not have something to do with that nutcase General McArthur? Apparently he wanted to use nuclear weapons on Korea too and I think he was dismissed by the U.S military not long after. I could be mistaken however.

I saw a bit of a documentary the other day about the US bombing of Germany. Initially there was an explicit policy to only bomb military targets. The US wanted to emphasise that they were fighting the war in a different way to the UK's area bombing and the German's bombing of London, etc.

This gradually got eroded as the war went on, with the documentary's talking heads describing how each step down the road to bombing civilian targets made the next step easier. I've just been skimming information about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings and the Tokyo firestorms, truly sobering, which is where that road led in the end.

Why didn't the US drop the A-Bomb in an unpopulated area of Japan as a demo?

It may have averted all the kerfuffle.

If you already feel that bombing civilian targets is justifiable then why drop the bomb where it is less likely to have the desired effect? Dropping it somewhere relatively unpopulated may have persuaded Japan to surrender, but dropping it on cities was much more likely to have that effect.

I was going to say that I would think that post conventional bombing deaths and injury do not occur (by which I mean people who were not affected by the bombs when dropped, fires, building collapses etc). But of course until you nuked a human population you don't know that the death toll will rise due to radiation poisoning. So if you don't carry out the experiment etc.

This is in response to the lower caualties argument for conventional warfare vs nuclear.

At the end of the day there were probably many reasons for dropping two on cities. I will always believe though that one of those reasons was purely revenge for Pearl Harbour.

1961Bikie wrote, "I was going to say that I would think that post conventional bombing deaths and injury do not occur"

To be fair, that doesn't really come into it- even taking into account the longer term deaths it's pretty much accepted that the a-bombs were still the less deadly option.

All those debate about right or wrong ... 😆

The first bomb is to ensure they surrender/stop fighting.

The second bomb is to make them submit totally without questioning and for the whole world to know not to mess with a superpower.

If a country(s)/people want to question/stop the legitimacy of US bombing the hell out of others then stop declaring 'war' on US.

Victor rules.

Hmm.

Is the killing of a civillian worse than the killing of a conscripted soldier?

Is being shot or blown up preferable to dying of radiation sickness?

chewkw - Member

"If a country(s)/people want to question/stop the legitimacy of US bombing the hell out of others then stop declaring 'war' on US"

I don't rememember britain declaring war on the US yet a lot of people question the legitimacy of them bombing the hell out of others. What a confused post.

The Flying Ox - Member
Because they were seriously cheesed off at the Japs after Pearl Harbour?
POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

It may have averted all the kerfuffle

Kerfuffle is an interesting choice of word 🙂

/relurk

Is the killing of a civillian worse than the killing of a conscripted soldier?

Yes. One is an act of war, the other either a war crime or 'collateral damage' depending on circumstances and who's telling the story.

Because it the war needed a victor and warn the rest of the world don't mess with us!

Also needed to be tested on the closest threat.

We'll never really know but I hope the human race grows up and learns to live with each other.

Ask Iran when they develop the bomb?

If the Americans had bombed an unpopulated area then everyone would think they'd missed.

The Japanese were beaten. They had no oil or bombs or planes or boats. All the young men were dead or diseased from fighting in seriously nasty environments with seriously poor support. The Americans could have placed them under siege, they weren't going anywhere.

Fuk 'em, said Truman, Fuk 'em in the ass. While at the same time phoning up the ruskies and saying 'watch this'. 'Eh? eh? you like that? That could be you.'

That's why Japan was bombed.

A significant proportion of US public opinion favoured exterminating the Japanese.

[img] [/img]

Horrific as it was it was better for the Allied forces in terms of casualties which justifies it for me. Why let thousands of your own people die in a conventional campaign when the means to end the war was to hand?

Wanting to limit the Soviet advance against Japanese held territory probably had much to do (along with poor weather) with following up the attack on Hiroshima with that on Nagasaki so swiftly.

Nagasaki was actually the secondary target for the second attack but was selected when Kokura was obscured by cloud. The Japanese also made no attempt to intercept the B29 bomber that delivered the bombs - due to fuel shortages they did not try to shoot down small groups of aircraft which they presumed were conducting reconnisance.

The allies probably did have options such as siege and conventional bombing but, after four years of warfare (six for us plucky Brits) everyone wanted to finish things things quickly.

It is always dangerous to judge wartime actions with a peacetime morality.

The older I get, the more I feel that war and barbarity is mankind's natural state and civilisation is a thin and fragile veneer that all good people strive to maintain.

With the odd day off for local derbies like Villa v Blues.

the more I feel that war and barbarity is mankind's natural state

Samuri - the Japanese were virtually under seige to start with, that's why they went to war. The sanctiosn against them cut off most of their supplies, they don't have the natural resources to support themselves, they must import.

I am always amused by the soft 21st Century hindsight that promotes all this handwringing and blame. It was the same when Bomber command had a memorial unveiled, there was a lot of 'Ooh, but they bombed Dresden'. It was a war; unpleasant things happen.

The Flying Ox - Member
Because they were seriously cheesed off at the Japs after Pearl Harbour?

Japs!!?? Really?? What next ?

I don't quite remeber the details now, but even before the bomb the [b][i]Japanese[/i][/b] were looking for an 'exit strategy' some overtures had been made, looking for a way to surrender with honour. The Bombs may have shortened the war, but not by very much. A lnadd invasion was never going to be necessary.

Here's another question: Did the US realise what a can of worms they were opening? And did they really open the can, or was it Einstein et al many years before?

It was Einstein, at least he thought so

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.

Also Oppenheimer

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

i suggest that the correlation between increases in background radiation across the world and cancer rates for the whole human population since we decided to start exploding nuclear bombs would suggest that dropping bombs on Japan did not save that many allied lives in the long run

From my reading on this...

The invasion option was already being discounted at the time. Military planners realised that they would be looking at a huge loss of life and were backing away from that after their experiences on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Interestingly though, these planners knew nothing of the Manhatten Project, due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the bomb development. They were delaying decision making on an amphibious landing on the basis of fire bombing and submarine blockade. (The USN Submarine Service rarely get their measure of credit for the defeat of Japan).

Timing / triggering of the nuclear strikes is now thought to be as much to do with US / USSR posturing. The Soviets had already occupied Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the Kuriles. They were mobilising for an amphibious assualt of their own on the northern Japanese home island of Hokkaido - threatening a similar carve up to that expereinced in central Europe.

Regarding dropping on open ground to demo the bomb.... quite the contrary. Hiroshima was selected as a target precisely because it had not been extensively bombed during the air campaign. The US wanted to evaluate the full impact of their new weapons

i suggest that the correlation between increases in background radiation across the world and cancer rates for the whole human population

Stats for that? I would strongly suggest that, if cancer rates have indeed gone up since 1950 ish, there would be a LOAD of things that could account for that, since that's basically when the modern world kicked off. Plus you'd also expect a drop in rate of increase of cancer when we stopped testing bombs, would you not?

Its very difficult for any of us to comment on the rights and wrongs of it. None if us have lived through a world war where the possibility of your country being invaded and the entire population being wiped out is actually on the cards or at least the threat and perception is there. Also remember that in reality there were no civilians as everyone was somehow involved in the war effort even if they were just baking bread for the people that made the bullets. When there is a full scale war then the gloves really do come off as you have complete hatred for the other side as it is "kill or be killed". Do we not think the Japanese would not have done the same if they had developed the bomb. During a world war (i.e. a chance your country will be over run) has there ever been a time when the decision has been made to not use the most powerful weapon an army has irrelevant of the deaths. Granted the US was not going to be overrun but they were so committed to the war around the world.

I still find is strange that only 65 years after we bombed the hell out of each other and millions of people were killed that now we get on and there is no level of hatred or resentment between us and the Germans and Japanese. How was this pulled off as it is one hell of a piece initiative.

Dont think I am trying to say the A bomb was a good or bad thing but I think it is just very easy for us to criticise people for making decisions when we have not experienced the events of the time. How many of use would have been happy to be the one that had to make the decision. I bet 99% of us would have bottled it and abstained.

no level of hatred or resentment between us and the Germans and Japanese.

Well, in fairness, most of them are dead on both sides

What a great thread. Proper grown up discussion with none of the usual STW low-rent ranting.
It will never last!

Its very difficult for any of us to comment on the rights and wrongs of it. None if us have lived through a world war

How many of use would have been happy to be the one that had to make the decision. I bet 99% of us would have bottled it and abstained

It is easy to convince ourselves that this is relevant - it is not. We live in a very different times in terms of societal values, (lack of)respect for authoritaay and easy access to information.

Even aside from the deeply clandestine A Bomb project, people on the ground - workers, civilians, servicemen / women, even the military chain of command, were not invited to partake in expressing opinions or contributing to decision making. A soldier saying "yes, good job they dropped the bomb, saved my life" is an entirely valid view point, but is utterly detached from any aspect of the decision making...

Ohh, and the European powers certainly did restrain themselves from using their most powerful weapons. Both the British and Germans expected to be subjected to chemical warfare, but weren't because each side were too fearful of the consequences of using the chemicals weapons that they had developed.

molgrips - Member

Plus you'd also expect a drop in rate of increase of cancer when we stopped testing bombs, would you not?

Nope - we have increased the background radiation count. Fission products take thousands of years to decay ( some of them)

However the two bombs in question consist of a drop in the ocean compared to the testing since.

[img] [/img]

I still find is strange that only 65 years after we bombed the hell out of each other and millions of people were killed that now we get on and there is no level of hatred or resentment between us and the Germans and Japanese. How was this pulled off as it is one hell of a piece initiative.

"In the early summer of 1945, various American military planners bobbed through Pacific typhoons, paced humid Sichuan airfields, and filled their War Department offices with tobacco smoke in anxiety, wondering what they would do with postwar Japan. The end of World War II in Asia is primarily remembered for its horrifying conflagration of human flesh and the U.S. Air Force attacks on civilians, but the period also witnessed the expression of a classic debate which concerns us today: Given conditions of defeat or collapse, can a victorious foreign power or an indigenous band of political reformers use a discredited imperial cult to its own ends?

Against a chorus of protest which included many Japanese, General Douglas MacArthur decided to maintain Hirohito on the throne, christening the Showa Emperor almost immediately in September 1945 as a man whose past was irrelevant and whose desires were congruent with the new democratic trends. MacArthur was well versed in using American troops to smash dissenters, but he fell squarely into the camp that the imperial institution, stripped of its militaristic garb, could play a significant role in stabilising Japanese society undergoing intense upheavals in virtually every other area of life. Hirohito played along magnificently, efficiently having his wartime diaries burned even as the US rebuilt Japanese airfield which would soon be used to drop napalm on North Korean troops and civilians."

[URL] http://adamcathcart.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/could-north-korea-survive-without-the-kim-cult [/URL]

Slightly OT, but we do a bit of corporate event work at the Imperial War Museum. Now I'm not one easily spooked, but I find the concept of sitting down to dinner, or partying into the night, right next to one of the spare "Little Boy" bomb casings really quite distasteful.

Its an interesting insight into the ability of the human race to completely ignore stuff that's right under their noses.

In terms of US taking various islands on the way to Japan, was it not the case that based on the range of the Superfortresses that basically Tokyo would have been next on the list as the Yanks built another airstrip on a nearer island.

I remember an article on the BBC website a while ago. Some poor guy was on a business trip to Hirosima when the atomic bomb went off. He survived that attack and managed to get home. Alas his home was in Nagasaki so he was the only person to have been nuked twice. Now that's being unlucky. He only died last year or something.

To recap this thread for the late-comers at the back;

1. The need to force a Japanese Surrender before the Soviets joined in.

2. The need to force an impression upon Stalin that the USA was now Number 1 ahead of all other Great Powers militarily, scientifically and industrially.

3. The Military Industrial Complex had built up enough momentum behind what was a prohibitively expensive project; that expense needed to be justified.

4. Conventional area and fire bombing attacks had already killed and injured hundreds of thousands in Axis cities by the summer of 1945. Why get worked up about another 200,000 thousand enemy civilians who had already been dehumanized in the eyes of the majority of UK/US citizens?

5. A land invasion would have cost an estimated 50,000 allied lives and likely hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

6. Siege? Not an option return to point 1.

Derek - Go and borrow Hiroshima's Shadow from a library. A very good collection of essays - even if a little liberal for my Daily Telegraph tastes 😉

In terms of US taking various islands on the way to Japan, was it not the case that based on the range of the Superfortresses that basically Tokyo would have been next on the list as the Yanks built another airstrip on a nearer island.

Tokyo had already been totally devastated by fire bombing. More people had already been killed there by delibertate propogation of firestorms than died in the atomic weapon attacks

Don't forget that the bombs were different types of bomb too - which may have influenced the decision to use the 2nd weapon on Nagasaki to a greater extent that may have been apparent at the time. Hiroshima was a simple (crude and untested) fission device, whilst Nagasaki was the same as the Trinity test device - a much more complex, shaped-charge Pu239 implosion device.

History suggests that Hiroshima had not been conventionally bombed to preserve it for the atomic bombing. Had it already been used as a target, the effects of the atomic bombing would not have sent 'the' message as clearly as flattening an intact city.

rkk01 has it about Tokyo - it was not selected as it had already been very heavily bombed and estimates suggest that >50% of the city was [already] destroyed (the casualty figures from which exceed both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki [i]initial[/i] figures at somewhere in the region of ~100k people), plus there was no real strategic value in bombing Tokyo.

Nagasaki was the secondary target on the 9th, Kokura was the primary, but weather and logistics saved it (which is maybe an odd way to put it, but no less true because of that).

"American Prometheus" (Oppenheimer's biography) is an interesting read, and adds to this period. You really do get the sense that the Cold War had begun well before WWII had ended ...

I disagree slightly about Tokyo not being strategic value. It was the capital after all. Yes, a lot was destroyed, but to have potentially all of it obliterated by a nuke would still be a pretty hefty blow to the guts of the Japanese.

But OCB has probably hit the nail on the head. The second device was probably more of a warning to USSR than a hit on Japan. Yanks thought Russia was 10+ years behind them in the nuclear arms race but when the US declared they'd hit Japan with a nuke the Russians didn't even flinch, because they'd already had their spy in the nuclear programme pass on most of the secrets.

Random addition to the thread.

Ive been to Hiroshima. There is a memorial there dedicated to Korean Prisoners, more than 1 in 10 of the people killed was a P.O.W

I had no idea of this 'til I went there.

Ohh, and the European powers certainly did restrain themselves from using their most powerful weapons. Both the British and Germans expected to be subjected to chemical warfare, but weren't because each side were too fearful of the consequences of using the chemicals weapons that they had developed.

I had heard or read somewhere that Hitler did not deploy any chemical weapons they had produced because he believed them to be relatively simple to develop and that the Allies would have the same as well and would retaliate in kind.

However, the Nazis were actually ahead of the Allies in terms of development.

Did we not have chemical weapons in WWI?

Very true.

Okay, I think I remember now. It was nerve agents like sarin I was thinking about.

Ohh, and the European powers certainly did restrain themselves from using their most powerful weapons. Both the British and Germans expected to be subjected to chemical warfare, but weren't because each side were too fearful of the consequences of using the chemicals weapons that they had developed.

I think it was more to do with the fact that high explosive was far more effective. Both sides had used blister agents in WW1 and knew they were very unpredictable due to wind etc. A chemical attack against a prepared population would also have been largely ineffective once the shock of the audacity of it wore off.

Very true.

Okay, I think I remember now. It was nerve agents like sarin I was thinking about.

The Germans did use nerve agents in WW2, with very effective results but only in environments where they had absolute control - death camp gas chambers for example.

Had the Germans carried out Operation Sea Lion in 1940 (invasion of the UK) I have little doubt that given the state of the British Army after Dunkirk Churchill would have ordered the use of everything including chemical weapons against the invading army.

I'll just add that if you want to be pedantic you could class white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, in which case the RAF (and others) used it extensively in WW2 as an incendiary.

Sorry I've turned up late.

I seem to remember reading that the two bombs were different (Uranium and Plutonium) as someone already said, and the makers weren't absolutely confident that they'd work. So it seemed likely that they'd be dropped at some point on a river valley, with the intention that, if they didn't explode, they'd be buried deep in alluvium beyond easy recovery. The aiming point for one was 'three bridges'.

The landings at Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrated the probable casualty rates for both sides. Even civilian residents there jumped off cliffs rather than face the invaders. Defenders' casualties were almost total.

The Demonstration to the Russians arguement works for Dresden, too.

Technicalities of bombs are interesting, I'm sure, but they went kaboom to kill people. That's it. Numbers.

breatheeasy

I disagree slightly about Tokyo not being strategic value. It was the capital after all. Yes, a lot was destroyed, but to have potentially all of it obliterated by a nuke would still be a pretty hefty blow to the guts of the Japanese.

Ah, I agree entirely there, sorry that I wasn't clear enough up the page - my earlier post would have made more sense it if said something like "[...] of no real [i]militarily[/i] strategic value (and of only limited tactical value)" ...

I can see an argument against not destroying Tokyo / destroying the ruling power in Japan (albeit symbolically).

There may have been a perceived risk in (again, albeit symbolically) destroying (rather than decapitating) Japanese political society / infrastructures - in that to do so could either cause civil instability and chaos that would take years to sort out (learn from history/doomed to repeat it anyone :roll:), or that it would galvanise the population into a kinda frenzied nationalism given that there was now, nothing else to lose, and you'd have a long, costly, attritional war against [potentially] unconventional forces far from home (err, learn from history/doomed to repeat it thing again)...

Perhaps a more far more powerful sign that you are utterly broken, to a majority of populace worn down by war, is to have your leaders 'humiliated' into suing for peace at the feet of a 'gracious' victor, and turn that into a spectacle for all to see. That way you know it's 'over', and you have lost.

One assumes (gulp) that America knew enough about Japanese history to recognise the impact of the 'shame' of defeat, and used that strategically to plan the end?

It would have (should have) been perfectly clear to America that a friendly, post-war Japan would have been a very useful ally to have in the region in the coming years, so preserving institutions to aid with reconstruction would make sense.

A lot of the 'traditional thinking' about seeking to end the war quickly is still on firm ground tho' - ending the war quickly would have prevented, or at least limited, the Soviet intervention in a wider war against Japan, thus denying them influence / control out into the Pacific, as well as 'saving' lives, or perhaps more expediently thought of as not 'costing' lives in a protracted ground war.

... and yeah, maybe the numbers did count, but had the potential of these devices not been used in 1945, when would they have been?

Maybe never of course, but had it been in amongst the paranoia, fear and irrationality of the late 1950's/early 1960's the 'casualty' figures would have been orders of magnitude higher, to the extent that it may very well have all ended then had the doctine of MAD (one way or another) not kept that particular demon in it's bottle.

The multi stage thermonuclear devices tested during that period had yields of >1000x the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and whilst that's not to claim a direct correlation of 1000x more power/damage, that distinction is only relevant to politics.

They are very odd things culturally. Ideally we'd all get rid of them, and that'd be that - but if 'someone' has them, lots of countries need them, paradoxically, just to prevent their use ... but that's for another thread.

[url= http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16 ]This[/url] page is interesting in terms of illustrating relative proportionality. You [can] overlay a map of somewhere you know with a blast radius, drawn to match the device you use.

Compare Hiroshima ("Little Boy") with the 1961 Soviet device "[url= http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html ]Tsar Bomba[/url]"