[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.