NationStates Jolt Archive

the subject come up on that 'US presidents' thread, and i was just thinking... (one of) the main arguements for the dropping of the bombs on japan at the end of WW2 was to scare them into submission and 'save the lives' of the tens of thousands of troops who could have been lost had the war gone on (as i understand it).


could the bomb not have been dropped, say, 70 miles off the coast of tokyo - within viewable distance - and a note dropped round to japanese command saying 'it'll be on top of you next', or words to that effect :confused:


i mean yeah, the japanese would have known about the destructive power of the bomb from the publicised tests beforehand, so its seeing its massively destructive effect with their own eyes that convinced the japanese to surrender (i guess). close off their shore would have achieved pretty much the same thing without the massive loss of civilian life, surely?


or do i not know enough about what was really going on (as i suspect many will tell me)

No. Dropped on Hiroshima it destroyed arms factories and shipyards used by the Japanese to arm their military. Out to sea it wouldn't have looked like much. A flash, a mushroom cloud, and some waves. No psychological impact from one plane gutting a city, no military impact from losing factories and shipyards.

An interesting thought, but done over the sea, with such a tremendous blast as that, would create a tsunami (or so I'd think) that would be more damaging in widespread effect.

Drunk Commies Deleted has already stated the reasoning for using it.

I won't pretend to be an expert, but if you look at the fact that even after the Hiroshima detonation, they didn't surrender, and even after the Nagasaki detonation, a lot of top military leaders in Japan wanted to fight to the end, I think that an offshore detonation wouldn't have been a powerful enough message to the Emperor that he needed to quit listening to his military leaders and surrender.

And also don't forget that one of the reasons we hit Hiroshima was that it was a military target, with weapons factories, and some 40,000 troops.

An interesting thought, but done over the sea, with such a tremendous blast as that, would create a tsunami (or so I'd think) that would be more damaging in widespread effect.

Drunk Commies Deleted has already stated the reasoning for using it.
No way. Not even an underwater detonation would cause a "substantial" wave. At least not one big enough to rival the damage done by the actual blast.

This is in regards to the 2004 Tsunami in Asia

The quake hit with mind-boggling intensity. It struck with a force equal to 32 billion tons of TNT, roughly equal to 2 million bombs the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II.
SOURCE (http://www.phschool.com/science/planetdiary/archive05/eart1010805.html)

could the bomb not have been dropped, say, 70 miles off the coast of tokyo - within viewable distance - and a note dropped round to japanese command saying 'it'll be on top of you next', or words to that effect :confused:

i mean yeah, the japanese would have known about the destructive power of the bomb from the publicised tests beforehand, so its seeing its massively destructive effect with their own eyes that convinced the japanese to surrender (i guess). close off their shore would have achieved pretty much the same thing without the massive loss of civilian life, surely?
This wouldn't have worked for whatever reason. Remember, even after the nuking of Hiroshima Japan was willing to keep going. They only surrendered after Nagasaki was also wiped out (and then I think that they only surrendered when they were told that a third one could be on the way at any moment).
You're assuming that Hiroshima caused the Japanese to wet themselves and give-up in an instant, they didn't, so I doubt that killing an assload of fish would have shocked them any more than killing a cities worth of their people.

snip
You're assuming that Hiroshima caused the Japanese to wet themselves and give-up in an instant, they didn't, so I doubt that killing an assload of fish would have shocked them any more than killing a cities worth of their people.Of course, it would have awoken Gojira and Tokyo would have suffered Wrath rather than Hiroshima...

I think they woud be glad to have saved Tokyo. :p

Japanese Culture of the 1940s: Surrendering is dishonorable

Hiroshima was chosen because of its military abilities. If it wasn't dropped on a city then its effects on the government would be minimal.

The US Government knew this and that is why Hiroshima was taken out.

In other news, this has been debated so many times, I should find what I said then and just copy and past it here.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the last remaining reasonably sized cities in Japan which had not already been firebombed into firestorm conditions. Whether you achieve the same effect with one bomb or ten thousand is a question of efficiency. It was not anything which the Japanese had not experienced before, with identical casualties.

So I doubt a test would have demonstrated anything, and similarly I doubt that the bombs had the psychological effect attribuuted to them by the Americans at the time. The horrors of radioactivity to the masses only became apparent in the months after the war had ended.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the last remaining reasonably sized cities in Japan which had not already been firebombed into firestorm conditions. Whether you achieve the same effect with one bomb or ten thousand is a question of efficiency. It was not anything which the Japanese had not experienced before, with identical casualties.

So I doubt a test would have demonstrated anything, and similarly I doubt that the bombs had the psychological effect attribuuted to them by the Americans at the time. The horrors of radioactivity to the masses only became apparent in the months after the war had ended.

The quote I remember hearing was the lament, "all this from only one bomb..."

From what I've read, although it didn't scare the Japanese military, it did scare the Emperor, and it did scare the people who were its immediate survivors.

No, I don't think that an aqueous detonation would have had nearly the effect it had when detonated over a "real" city. Besides, much of the damage came from debris, which you really wouldn't have in the middle of the ocean. :p

I doubt it would have been enough just to detonate one nearby and say "Hey boys, look at our new toy." They had to make sure Japan knew without a shadow of doubt that, not only did they have this terrible new weapon, but they were also willing to use it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the last remaining reasonably sized cities in Japan which had not already been firebombed into firestorm conditions.
That reminds me. Another reason that Hiroshima was picked was precisely because it hadnt been bombed significantly. The military knew that the damage would be more "noticable" in an intact city, rather than one that already looked damaged. They also knew that it would help them assess the damage radius more effectively.

but they were also willing to use it.Another good point. What good is it to show off a weapon if they think you won't use it.

the subject come up on that 'US presidents' thread, and i was just thinking... (one of) the main arguements for the dropping of the bombs on japan at the end of WW2 was to scare them into submission and 'save the lives' of the tens of thousands of troops who could have been lost had the war gone on (as i understand it).


could the bomb not have been dropped, say, 70 miles off the coast of tokyo - within viewable distance - and a note dropped round to japanese command saying 'it'll be on top of you next', or words to that effect :confused:


i mean yeah, the japanese would have known about the destructive power of the bomb from the publicised tests beforehand, so its seeing its massively destructive effect with their own eyes that convinced the japanese to surrender (i guess). close off their shore would have achieved pretty much the same thing without the massive loss of civilian life, surely?


or do i not know enough about what was really going on (as i suspect many will tell me)

Hiroshima was choosen for effect... Primarily, it was the location of the Seibi Military Academy... Which was an elite school run by the Japanese Imperial Army (and a Training ground in Sumarai tradition and warfare).. And there were many upcomming children of high-ranking Japanese military officers there... [It would be the equivalent of dropping a bomb on Annapolis or West Point....]... The assumption by some of it lacking any "military value" is by people who have no knowledge of the pre-WW2 significance of Hiroshima in Japanese military affairs... (This also does not account for the fact that Hiroshima was headquarters for Field Marshall Hata's Second Army; and the planning area for defense of the entirety of southern Japan...)... Another factor is that Hiroshima was one of the FEW largish Japanese cities that DID NOT house a POW camp.... Also, is the fact that [in addition to Nagasaki] Hiroshima bore large municians factories...

They could have not dropped the bomb, and the US could surrender and apologise for it's war of aggression on the peaceful Japanese...

An interesting thought, but done over the sea, with such a tremendous blast as that, would create a tsunami (or so I'd think) that would be more damaging in widespread effect.

Drunk Commies Deleted has already stated the reasoning for using it.

Actually, no... it wouldn't.... not even the significantly more powerfull H-bomb could even do that.....

You're assuming that Hiroshima caused the Japanese to wet themselves and give-up in an instant, they didn't, so I doubt that killing an assload of fish would have shocked them any more than killing a cities worth of their people.
very well i retract my idea

They could have not dropped the bomb, and the US could surrender and apologise for it's war of aggression on the peaceful Japanese...
Man, I HOPE YOUR KIDDING! Your kidding, right? Seriously. Right?

Man, I HOPE YOUR KIDDING! Your kidding, right? Seriously. Right?

*chuckles*

I do believe he was kidding! Minbari we are not! :D

*chuckles*

I do believe he was kidding! Minbari we are not! :D

CLOSE YOUR DAMN GUNPORTS!!!

CLOSE YOUR DAMN GUNPORTS!!!

But sir, it the tradition of the warrior cast.

But sir, it the tradition of the warrior cast.

*genocide (and hilarity) insues*

*genocide (and hilarity) insues*

:D

That was a fun disraction! Thanks :)

:D That was a fun disraction! Thanks :)
Forget disraction! Gojira attacking Tokyo! Underwater Nucrear bombs make him mad!

Tell America to bomb Nagasaki - not Ocean!

Oh No! There goes Tokyo! Go Go Gojira! :D

its also good to remember that we only had 2 bombs. if they didnt work psychologically to get the japanese to surrender, we needed them to at least have had a positive military effect.

Of course, it would have awoken Gojira and Tokyo would have suffered Wrath rather than Hiroshima...

I think they woud be glad to have saved Tokyo. :p

Tokyo took it up the ass a lot harder than Hiroshima, I would venture to say. :)

Aahh so. But Death by Gojira is not so easy as death by Nuke in far away city.

Save Tokyo from Gojira. Do not nuke Ocean!

Aahh so. But Death by Gojira is not so easy as death by Nuke in far away city.

Save Tokyo from Gojira. Do not nuke Ocean!
hehe

I like you

wanna grab a coffee?

hehe

I like you

wanna grab a coffee?
Cup on the desk. PA too far away for coffee break unless you have access to a Transporter & a Scotsman. Sorry.

the subject come up on that 'US presidents' thread, and i was just thinking... (one of) the main arguements for the dropping of the bombs on japan at the end of WW2 was to scare them into submission and 'save the lives' of the tens of thousands of troops who could have been lost had the war gone on (as i understand it).

It also saved an estimated 4 million japanese lives

could the bomb not have been dropped, say, 70 miles off the coast of tokyo - within viewable distance - and a note dropped round to japanese command saying 'it'll be on top of you next', or words to that effect :confused:

Many ideas were put forward for demonstrations, all were rejected because they could not be 100% sure it would work.

i mean yeah, the japanese would have known about the destructive power of the bomb from the publicised tests beforehand,

What publicised tests? Prior to the two bombs dropped on Japan there had been only one test - the Trinity test - and the last thing that was was publicised.

so its seeing its massively destructive effect with their own eyes that convinced the japanese to surrender (i guess). close off their shore would have achieved pretty much the same thing without the massive loss of civilian life, surely?


or do i not know enough about what was really going on (as i suspect many will tell me)

Aahh so. But Death by Gojira is not so easy as death by Nuke in far away city.

Save Tokyo from Gojira. Do not nuke Ocean!
and Poor Tokyo Tower... it's the only landmark Gojira, Mothra, Rodan and all the Touristy monsters can destroy.

and Poor Tokyo Tower... it's the only landmark Gojira, Mothra, Rodan and all the Touristy monsters can destroy.
I once saved the earth from a colony drop by using Tokyo Tower like a baseball bat

"Hiroshima: couldn't they have done it, like, somewhere else?"

Well, I would have recommended Toyko, but I was a bit young at the time. :p

The fact of the matter was that there were only two atomic bombs in existence at the time and they didn't even know if the damned things would work. Ergo, Hiroshima.

They could have not dropped the bomb, and the US could surrender and apologise for it's war of aggression on the peaceful Japanese...I hope to God you're joking. Remember, the Japs attacked us first at Pearl Harbor?!

The U.S. plans for invading Japan were what were called Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. According to a magazine article I read, the Japanese were able to anticipate the American strategies involved and prepare accordingly. Whether they would have successfully repelled an attack is another matter, but even if Coronet worked perfectly, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

"Hiroshima: couldn't they have done it, like, somewhere else?"

Well, I would have recommended Toyko, but I was a bit young at the time. :p
You know, I've heard before that the bomb that was droped on Nagasaki(sp) was originally intended for Tokyo, but that the AA fire was to heavy, so they droped it on a secondary target, Nagasaki(sp).

You know, I've heard before that the bomb that was droped on Nagasaki(sp) was originally intended for Tokyo, but that the AA fire was to heavy, so they droped it on a secondary target, Nagasaki(sp).

Actually, it was intended for another city that was left untouched by bombing. However the cloud level there made it impossible. With Nagasaki, there was a hole in the clouds and they dropped the bomb on their secondary city.

Well, I would have recommended Toyko, but I was a bit young at the time.

In grad school I took a class called "Modern Warfare", in which we had a class discussion about that very thing. Although we never came to a consensus, it is interesting to note that had Tokyo been one of the targets, the Japanese most likely would NOT have surrendered. The military leadership was intent upon "fighting to the last man". The emperor, who went against those wishes, would have most likely been killed in a nuclear attack on Tokyo, and therefore would not have been able to override the military's gameplan.

You know, I've heard before that the bomb that was droped on Nagasaki(sp) was originally intended for Tokyo...

Untrue. It was discussed, but rejected by Pacific Command. AA fire had nothing to do with the decision, either. Although a higher "body count" would have been achieved, it was thought at the time that a military target would be more effective in crippling the Japanese fighting capability in case a modified Operation Olympic or Operation Coronet was still necessary.

Actually, it was intended for another city that was left untouched by bombing. However the cloud level there made it impossible. With Nagasaki, there was a hole in the clouds and they dropped the bomb on their secondary city.
Thanks for the correction, its always good to learn more. :)

I think dropping it in the water would have killed even more Japanese.... Japan has very little agriculture it relies on the sea for fish and all that. The atom bomb could poison the water and make it even more destructive. Not only that but a lot of the asian countries would be pissed that the U.S poisoned the water supply

No damage to see afterwards, water tends to flow back in and all that. ;)

Hiroshima was chosen for a wide varitiy of reasons, most listed here, and yes, Little Boy was a different type of bomb than the one used at Trinity so we really had no idea if it was going to work or not.

On another interesting note, there's been a growing debate on the actual effects of the bombing. While the Japanese goverment publicly admited that the bombs caused the end of the war, there ahve been some papers recently released that seem to show that the bombs were nothing more than a face saving measure to the Japanese.

Meaning the Showa Emperor used the shock of the bombs as the excuse to draw the war to its end and also to surrender to US forces instead of Soviet. We will probably never know as the Showa Emperor's personal papers are under seal and the Imperial Household Agency is notorious for not releasing ANYTHING that might damange the Imperial family.

I thiink we should all have a take a minute (everyone is going to ignore this..) to pray for the people who got hit with this thing... I'm really happy that the toxic air from the atom bomb is starting to drift away from Japan (If my information is correct)

I'm really happy that the toxic air from the atom bomb is starting to drift away from Japan (If my information is correct)
Uh... the background radiation in Hisroshima right now isn't all that higher than normal and still well within safety levels.

Any contaminated soil/materials/air has long been disposted of.

Now if you're talking about the incrediable levels of air polution over most Japanese cities, yes that is finally starting to drift away, but only because the fall winds are here.

You know, I've heard before that the bomb that was droped on Nagasaki(sp) was originally intended for Tokyo, but that the AA fire was to heavy, so they droped it on a secondary target, Nagasaki(sp).

Just to finish up the corrections, the target was Kokura (now part of Kitakyushu). Kokura was home to one of the largest armories in Japan.

According to this account (http://www.saffo.com/essays/roadfromtrinity4.php), one of the reasons fatman wasn't dropped on Kokura was that Bockscar was delayed over Yakoshima. She had gotten separated from the camera and instrument escort planes by bad weather. During the time Bockscar spent waiting, the clouds and smoke (from an incendiary attack) moved in and covered Kokura.

The secondary target of Nagasaki was also covered by clouds, but a "lucky" hole appeared and the bomb was dropped. However the aim point was about a mile off - the bomb imploded over Urakami cathedral instead of the shipyards.

You know, I've heard before that the bomb that was droped on Nagasaki(sp) was originally intended for Tokyo, but that the AA fire was to heavy, so they droped it on a secondary target, Nagasaki(sp).

Kyoto was the primary target... And even Nagasaki was almost a no go, because of cloud cover...

Kyoto was the primary target... And even Nagasaki was almost a no go, because of cloud cover...

:headbang:

If you have a special source that contradicts the version that is commonly accepted (Kokura Armory as the primary), I'd be happy to have a look at it. However, if you can't, I'm going to resrve the right to mock you for　posting silly crap.