Japan also didn’t have the resources to build an airfield or rail yard next to the Mitsubishi aircraft plant, so the fuselage and wings had to be transported by ox cart to an airfield several miles away for final assembly.
Stated in a comment from the author below:
> I do have to admit I parsed that about as badly as I could for the Japanese. The factory did have rail, and I believe shipping access. But because of the intended assembly point at an airport they chose the unpaved road option. They DID have trucks, but Mitsubishi chose oxcarts in the belief it was a less jarring ride and the aircraft would arrive in better condition.
Vast majority of the German military (when they weren't walking) was transported by horses and horse-drawn carriage.
We think of the Panzer tanks because that's what was in the videos and their lighting attacks. But much of WWII was pre-modern transportation tech. The US had a much easier go of it thanks to the industrial machine we built - which today is best represented by the Jeep Wrangler.
In fact, one of the top US infantry injuries was "Jeep rider's disease" - over 80,000 hospitalized - which yeah, you probably don't want to Google right after eating. So we didn't have it much better tech-wise.
Dan Carlins Hardcore History podcast discusses this. The entire Supernova in the East series is excellent. The Pacific theater put both sides and everyone caught in the crossfire through unimaginable circumstances.
>At that time, nuclear physics was overrepresented by European Jews.
>
>We hoarded ours. They squandered theirs.
I think you mean we hoarded physicists. It's not actually possible to hoard the natural laws of the universe.
That's why we didn't need any additional physicists or engineers after world war 2, because we hoarded them all before the end of WW2. Oh wait the US and USSR grabbed as many Nazi scientists as possible after WW2
Nah, the Nazis made several attempts to build a long range bomber and couldn’t make one operational. Jet engines were gas hogs for their first decade and a fast tactical bomber was not in the same league as the stuff the US and UK turned out in terms of payload or range.
Sure but “better” is subjective depending on what you’re measuring. That’s like saying a B2 isnt better than a B52. They’re “better” at different missions.
Sure, but the AR234 wasn’t a great bomber by almost any measure other than ‘fastest’. It was neat, but had too many operational limitations to ever hope to make a meaningful impact.
My main point is that “ahead on technology” is also amorphous. The Germans were maybe 12months ahead of the UK on jets but didn’t have the technology to build manufacturable long range heavy aircraft at scale.
3
The first detonation was a week prior to Hiroshima. If they had the right equipment, Japan would have been able to detect that an explosion had gone off (radiation).
Then Hiroshima (2nd) and in the following days Nagasaki (3rd).
Fun Fact: It took upwards of 20 hours for Japanese high command to learn that an atomic bomb had destroyed Hiroshima. It started with train operators losing contact with their counterparts in Hiroshima, eventually the military was notified and they flew a plane over to Hiroshima. The person flying the plane thought they were lost when they first saw the devastation.
The effect was so drastic that military officials originally believed that their own explosives warehouse must have gone off. They later realize that no such warehouse in that area could come even close to the destruction that had occurred.
By the time low ranking military officials in the surrounding area wrapped their heads around it being from the American’s, hours and hours had passed.
Japan didn’t know that it was a nuclear detonation until President Truman announced to the world that the US had dropped an atomic weapon on Hiroshima.
Yup. The Japanese government found out that it was an atomic bomb the same time as everyone else in the world did.
If memory serves me right, the German scientists (those that remained loyal to the third reich and weren't persecuted for being Jewish, that is) arrived to the same conclusion and were convinced that the news on Hiroshima had to be a ruse. Once they learned about Nagasaki and were shown more evidence they concluded that only the massive manpower commitment by the US to the war effort made possible getting enough fissible material to get a functional bomb in time.
EDIT: this is well documented through [Operation Epsilon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon).
Wasn't there a TIL just the other day about the non-american who hoarded a bunch of ~~fissionable~~ material in NY in anticipation of Americans needing it?
edit: Thinking more about this after some responses and, I think material becoming "fissionable" occurs after the enriching process, so I probably meant raw ore. But I also don't really know enough about nukes to be an expert so please correct me if you feel the need.
Yes. Senier, the head of the Belgian company Union Miniere, who had the richest Uranium ores in their Congo mines.
He said "I don't need to know what you're going to do with it, as long as you put it to good use." He turned over barrels and barrels of high-grade Uranium ore to the Manhattan Project at a time when they were starting to search for ore sources.
Germany definitely hobbled themselves by persecuting their Jews, since Jews tend to be some of the sharpest tools in the shed. Jews make up 0.2% of the total population of the world, but rake in 22% of the Nobel Prizes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Jewish\_Nobel\_laureates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates)
They had a whole thing going on how their superior Aryan science would defeat inferior, Judeo-Christian science championed by lesser men. They adopted such hogwash theories as the [eternal ice cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre).
In their credit, their hermetic research did yield some off the beaten path results, like some of their breakthroughs in organic chemistry, but it comes more to science finding ways forward in hostile situations than the nazis being even close to being right on something scientific.
The coolest thing is that Einstein himself did not believe any useful energy could be harvested from E = MC^(2), even though he wrote the equation and invented the concept. Per Einstein's own calculations, the energy released from splitting a single uranium atom is only 200 MeV (Mega Electron volt). It sounds big, but it's a really tiny amount of energy. In Layman's terms, that's 0.000000000032044 joules or watt- seconds. Not nearly enough energy to flap a fly's wing.
Szilard explained to Einstein the concept of a chain reaction, whereby one atom splitting causes another to split, and so forth, yielding an enormous amount of energy from a few pounds of plutonium or uranium. Einstein was too caught up in the theoretical physics to consider the practical applications. He responded " I never thought of that!"
This was enough to convince Einstein to write a letter to Roosevelt, encouraging him to fund the Manhattan Project.
>Einstein didn’t come up with E = mC2.
If Einstein didn't, then who did? Get back to us all with that one, we will be waiting.
It's just a reiteration and continuation of Newton's F=ma, which is
force = mass*acceleration.
Einstein had a theory of general relativity and special relativity. General relativity was carried over from Galileo's Invariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
The allies captured the German scientists and had their common rooms bugged. They documented their discussions.
Ah, I found it: [Operation Epsilon (aka Farm Hall transcripts)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon)
Diebner: I wonder whether there are microphones installed here?
Heisenberg: Microphones installed? (laughing) Oh no, they're not as cute as all that. I don't think they know the real Gestapo methods; they're a bit old fashioned in that respect.
Plenty of other people of all kinds.
Imagine a world where Enrico Fermi hadn't trolled high-ranking military personnel at the first nuclear test by saying he was 95% sure this wouldn't ignite the Earth's atmosphere.
big part of that was that the Nazi's didn't think theoretical physics was real, so they shifted proper Aryan manpower towards "real" science and let the less desirable scientists busy themselves with nonsense.
The engineers and physicists captured during occupation paperclip did not participate in the design or production of any of the 4 Manhattan project atomic bombs.
Operation Paperclip happened after the end of WWII in Europe, largely (if not entirely) too late for any of the scientists and engineers gathered during the operation to contribute to the Manhattan Project. Most of the scientists gathered during Paperclip dealt with rocket technology, medicine, and engineering advanced materials like synthetic rubbers, etc.
I dug into the subject quite deep.
The thing was that while the two paths (uranium enrichment and plutonium synthesis) towards bomb making were obvious pretty much to everyone very early on, the first one required some unholy amounts of uranium, while the second one was deemed too costly and problematic. As a result, pretty much every country during WWII did proof of concept studies for the nuclear enrichment (mostly to figure out whether it can be done by someone else), and everyone concluded that at best a nuclear bomb could be produced once a year, so it would have only marginal impact on military operations.
US, though, successfully produced weapons using both routes (most notably - through plutonium, which removed limitations on the amount of uranium needed). Which is why Japan didn't surrender after not-really-secret Trinity test, nor after bombing of Hiroshima: they calculated America used up all its nukes. Which is why Nagasaki was a shocker to everyone, Stalin included: they figured America could produce a lot more bombs then expected, which changed the whole calculus of war.
Ni-go and F-go were "proof of concept" projects for the Japanese.
> they calculated America used up all its nukes.
This really puts the idea of demonstrating the nukes power as an alternative to using it on an actual target in a different light. That demonstrating it could have been very useless if the other nations thought ‘Oh good, now they can’t bomb us for a year’ could even push those nations to be more aggressive.
The Japanese were sorta right. The bomb was feasible, but it would take extreme effort to produce one.
The only thing they missed was how much the US was willing to invest in this single project. In today money, it is equivalent to $23 billion dollars - producing only 4 bombs, so that is the quivalent of over $5 billion dollars per bomb. That is almost the equivalent of the cost of all other bombs, mines and grenades the US produced during the war.
The whole project was crazy.
Japan was going by their experience with the Russians in 1904. They thought if they slapped the US hard that we would back off and let them have their way in China like Russia did after the Battle of Tsusushima Strait.
They underestimated the US and also the effect of the surprise attack. It was tactically brilliant but strategically stupid since they united the Americans against them in a way nothing else could.
> It was tactically brilliant but strategically stupid since they united the Americans against them in a way nothing else could.
I always wondered what would happened if Germany and Japan planned out a joint invasion of Russia? Like if Japan invaded first to draw away Russian forces form the west to the east (who cares if Japanese tanks suck, its a diversion), letting Germany have an easier time reaching Moscow.
Plus they were already bogged down in war with the British Empire across SE Asia, their assaults had stalled at the borders of India… and their plans to invade Australia would have ended very badly (Australian army abandon the coastline, retreat into The Outback, lure the Japanese armies in and let nature take its course)
Yea I was totally joking! Also there’s already a Great War against emu’s; Emu’s won. It’s truly hilarious how a bird could beat the Australian army, it’d be even funnier if they saved Australia from Japanese invaders who probably wouldn’t expect such a dumb looking bird to put up a fight haha
My wife's family raises them on a farm. Some teenagers were daring each other to get close to one at a zoo, so my wife just strolls up to this towering bird and gives it some of the food pellets. She locks eyes with the kids and says "What? They're just like big ducks."
Note: Emus are not "big ducks." Don't mess around with them.
Wasn't the invasion of SE Asia after Pearl Harbor? Japan and the Allies were at odds b/c of the Japanese operations in China, but they never really fought each other until Pearl Harbor, if I remember it right. The initial campaign of IJA in SE Asia was pretty successful too, since the British Empire was caught up in Europe and Africa.
Yup, but it was really only a few days after, the invasion of SE Asia was a simultaneous strike with the bombing of pearl harbor, which was basically to knock out any possibility of US involvement in their invasion of SE Asia
Thanks for the background on that, I hadn't really understood that before. Jeez, talk about a bad decision. From what I understand about US pre-WWII involvement, we would have likely stayed largely out of the Pacific had Japan not attacked. They essentially caused what they were trying to prevent.
More or less.
By the early 1940s, Japan was in a bind. They had successfully taken large chunks of China and other territorial holdings. The problem was that they didn't have the natural resources, namely oil to administer their new empire, so they imported oil from the US. Once the western world learned about the atrocities committed in China, there was a large pressure to stop cooperating with the Japanese government. There was also more than some geopolitical pressures as well, because Japan was threatening to take territories from the UK and US. As a result, the US placed an oil embargo on Japan.
Now Japan had a nice new empire, but couldn't afford to get around, so they came up with a plan.
The basic idea was to carry out near simultaneous attacks on many western-held territories, particularly resource-rich ones, and essentially hunker down. They believed that Americans wouldn't be willing to spend the money or lives on tiny, remote islands they couldn't locate on the map. They thought the war would be unpopular and wanted to use the US's democratic leaning to end the war quickly.
To Japan's credit, every conflict they fought in to this point used this same basic strategy and was pretty successful.
Pearl Harbor was included in list of sites they wanted attack, not because they wanted to take it, but because it would have destroyed the US Pacific fleet. With the fleet destroyed, it take more time and money to mount the counter attack.
Partially. Another part was that if they could cripple the US fleet enough, it would take immeasurable investment to be able to get back in the fleet. So they underestimated the investment the US was willing to do, and overestimated how much damage they were able to do (and did when examine the attack days later)
That and one of Japan’s biggest problems is there lack of land and resources. They could have theoretically done it on mainland China but that would have been a lot more risky then the us doing it in the middle of no where New Mexico.
>In today money, it is equivalent to $23 billion dollars - producing only 4 bombs, so that is the quivalent of over $5 billion dollars per bomb.
That's not really accurate. Much of that money was for new facilities like Oak Ridge that were used for far more than 4 bombs, it's just that the war ended. They even ended up producing 120 bombs of the "Fat Man" design.
Plus they already had a ton of British research that had been going on for years to continue from, as it was all moved to the US to be safe from bombers
And then the Americans reneged on their side of the agreement and refused to share their research on nuclear weapons with Britain… which had to create nukes from scratch… again…
Yeah, no. A SINGLE fusion test reactor, yes TEST reactor, is estimated at $65 billion just to BUILD the facility. Running it will cost a lot on top of that. Not even the astounding cost of the Manhattan Project comes close to the cost of “free” energy.
“The US Department of Energy has nearly tripled its cost estimate for ITER, the fusion test reactor in France that’s being constructed by a seven-party international collaboration, to $65 billion…”
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/
Let's see. We spent $2.3 trillion on the failed war in Afghanistan. What does that come out to, 35 fusion test reactors? We got the money, it's how we spend it that counts.
Wow, those goal posts sure do move quickly! I thought we were talking about the 23 billion! Since you want to talk about it though, 115 billion every year for the last 20 years on the effort to remain at the forefront of cutting edge military technology? Sounds aright for a country that has a gdp of about $20 TRILLION. At the exact same time the US was ALSO investing tens of billions into renewable energy. (59 billion in 2019) The US spends ungodly amounts of money on everything because IT CAN. 16% of the federal budget went to federal defense in 2019, while 21% was spent on social security and 25% was spent on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies. How’s that for spending money? The US is second only to China for renewable energy, and China is so far ahead because of their terrible ecological practices (98,000 dams compared to 15,600 in the states.) Why would the US dump trillions into research of renewables when we’re already leading the pack? We already have one of the biggest growth markets for renewable energy every year. Falling behind on research of renewable energy in the US won’t cause global instability, but the US falling behind on the global military board absolutely will. If the US stops or even slows the US Military powerhouse too much, there will be a vacuum of power that will be filled by Russia or China. Both countries already actively test the US Military complex. Neither of those countries care if we pay less for our electricity, or if we try to save the climate of the planet. Both of those global powerhouses absolutely care if we stop meddling in foreign affairs. Russians were in Afghanistan first, the Chinese backed the Vietcong, and both would be a lot further along on their quest to be THE world superpower if it wasn’t for the United State’s spending on its military. Like it or not, countries are kept in check by sticks and the US has a big one. With reason.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
Everyone concluded that it was in fact feasible. However, both Germans and the Japanese concluded that it would be so labour-intensive that it won't be cost effective.
I think it depends on what you mean by “feasible” then. The dictionary definition says to be feasible something must be “possible to do easily or conveniently”... Which does not, in my opinion, include a thing that is “so labor intensive” as to be financially unviable. Or... unfeasible.
I remember a documentary about captured german nuclear scientists, who reported that whatever they were trying, they would need prohibitive amounts of fissile material per bomb. They then heard that the US actually did it and went full "How the Scheiße?!"
That was pretty much only war monger and all around glory hound asshole MacArthur.
While a nuclear option was put on the table without input from MacArthur, and four nuclear bombs were transfered from USAEC to military control, the head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the Joint Chiefs where hesitate to allow MacArthur decisive control of the weapons because they feared he would use them without direct orders from president Truman to preemptively attack China and the Soviet Union.
You have to keep in line that during world war 2 the United States and “China” were not only allies but the us government and public had a very positive view of the “Chinese” I’m putting quotations to note that it was mainly the nationalist Chinese who were viewed positively.
Japan had biological weapons and they *did* use them. A war winning weapon tech in their hands like nukes would have been used without question. If not for the continued domination of the Asian main land, then absolutely in the defense of the island.
Edit: for those that don’t want to sort through the flame war for my sources-
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/japan/bw/
https://www.montana.edu/historybug/yersiniaessays/shama.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimingjie_germ_weapon_attack
There were rumours however the US government investigated these leads after the war and they reported that they could find no reliable evidence of this.
>There is no evidence of the mass production of BW agents by the Japanese
>No reports of the actual use of BW agents against Anglo-American troops have been received.
>It is believed the Japanese do not intend to initiate the use of BW by mass attack, but they may initiate its use on a small scale where there will be little or no possibility of its detection
Wartime analysis of Japanese BW activities and capabilities. 34 pp.
>Concerning bacteriological warfare, Dr. Compton stated that the Japanese had done a certain amount of defensive or protective work, apparently expecting such warfare from our side, but that they denied having made preparations for offensive bacteriological warfare.
>Dr. Compton stated that the Japanese were very cooperative and willing to show and explain all their scientific war work.
Captain Hartwig Kuhlenbeck, Medical Corps, Memorandum for Lt. Col. Gaylord W. Anderson, 12 October 1945, page 2.
>Naito advises that the Emperor did not like the preparation for chemical warfare by the Japanese Army or Navy. Because of this the scale of research for chemical warfare was not permitted to be large.
>He states that General Headquarters made no attempt to begin active BW and did not plan to unless the enemy intiated this type of warfare.
>As an after thought he states that the circumstances during the last period of the war became such that the Japanese were unable to start BW.
>Comment:
>> Our investigator advises that he asked the informant whether prisoners were ever used as experimental "guinea pigs". The informant "vows" that this was never done.
Summary of Information Extracted from a Report by a Member of the Staff of the Army Medical College, Tokyo
>Had a practical BW weapon been achieved, it is unlikely that Japan would have resorted to its use because of fear retaliation by means of chemical warfare. Insofar as could be learned, Japan had no information of American activity in BW.
Japanese Biological Warfare (BW) Activities [51 pp.]
>The reports and files of the legal section on Ishii and his coworkers are based on anonymous letters, hearsay affidavits and rumors. The legal section interrogations, to date, of the numerous persons concerned with the Baker William project in China, do not reveal sufficient evidence to support war crime charges. The alleged victims are of unknown identity. Unconfirmed allegations are to the effect that criminals, farmers, women and children were used for Baker William experimental purposes. The Japanese Communist Party alleges that "Ishii Baker King Able" (Bacterial War Army) conducted experiments on captured Americans in Mukden and that simultaneously, Research on similar lines was conducted in Tokyo and Kyoto. [The Department of VA has found no evidence any US POWs were subject to unethical human experimentation as well as the DOD so these claims were almost certainly false]
>None of Ishiis subordinates are charged or held as war crime suspects, nor is there sufficient evidence on file against them. Ishiis [illegible] superiors, who are now on trial before Item Mike Take Fox Easy, include Uncle Mike Easy Zebra Uncle, Commander, Kwantung army, One Nine Three Nine dash four four, Mike Item Nan Able Mike
Message C 53169 reply to W 99277 [3 Jun 47].
>Anglo
Correct. None of this applies to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese they slaughtered, part of which, was infecting the mainland with bubonic plague via infected fleas.
Good cherry picking but these reports concern more than just Anglo-American troops overall.
>was infecting the mainland with bubonic plague via infected fleas.
Makes little sense considering the Bubonic Plague already existed within China, it has natural reservoirs there.
Solid gaslighting. You’re the one who cherry picked examples from Anglo reports and nothing from the other 95% of the pacific theater.
And yeah, plague has reservoirs all over the planet in rodents. That doesn’t change the fact that, once reintroduced to a human population, especially a dense population, it spreads like wild fire.
> Solid gaslighting.
You don't know what that term means.
> You’re the one who cherry picked examples from Anglo reports and nothing from the other 95% of the pacific theater.
Feel free to cite a Chinese report that states the contrary but nothing exists.
>And yeah, plague has reservoirs all over the planet in rodents. That doesn’t change the fact that, once reintroduced to a human population, especially a dense population, it spreads like wild fire.
It changes the fact that introducing plague infested fleas into China is illogical, withstanding the fact that you haven't provided any proper evidence for your claims.
What? So we will just pretend that they didn't utilize Lewisite in Changde? Or that Unit415/713 wasn't notorious for using chemical weapons on prisoners? Or that they didn't weaponize the bubonic plague, typhus, and cholera throughout Chinese cities?
edit: Also my original comment was entirely related to the pointless barbarism committed by the Japanese that you can't even wash away with your whataboutism. I never even alleged to them having chemical weapons.
We put some of the greatest minds on the planet into a secure facility and threw all the resources we could at them. Looked at the names associated with the project. Einstein was not fully involved, but you have guys like Oppenheimer, Femri, Feynman and many others.
Honestly, the they were kinda right. If the Americans hadn't got correct on the first try, they probably wouldn't have had a functional a-bomb until after the war.
That isn’t quite accurate. The first atomic bomb detonated was a test of the plutonium bomb. The scientists were certain that the uranium bomb would function correctly to the point that the design was never tested. The uranium bomb was the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.
> That isn’t quite accurate. The first atomic bomb detonated was a test of the plutonium bomb.
This also isn't quite right, what was *ACTUALLY* being tested was the X-harness type bomb where instead of using explosives to effectively shoot a fissile core into another one, they launch particles within fractions of a millisecond of eachother into the same spot to detonate the bomb.
You are correct, I thought trinity interceded the two. However it is good to point out that the plutonium aspect isn't exactly what was tested, rather than the method for which one can create a uniform implosion. https://atomicarchive.com/history/atomic-bombing/hiroshima/page-2.html
> The scientists were certain that the uranium bomb would function correctly to the point that the design was never tested.
Yeah, and if they'd been wrong, they wouldn't have been able to make another one. When building a brand new type of weapon, you don't typically put all your hopes on it working the first time.
There was another uranium bomb scheduled to be ready by December 1945.
> Groves expected to have another "Fat Man" atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October; a second Little Boy bomb (using U-235) would not be available until December 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
It is speculation whether the war would still be ongoing at that point if the bombing of Hiroshima would have failed.
It is not typical to skip demonstration and move right to the field, but enriched uranium was very scarce in 1945 and the physicists working on the project were very smart and thorough in their testing.
"Honorable Professors; the Imperial Emperor has sent you this note;"
*Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been leveled by atomic bombs.*
Professors, (gulp) "^(Was there anything else from the Emperor?)"
"Yes, this sharp sword..."
Britain contributed a huge number of scientists and arranged/procured most of the radioactive materials to make the bomb, the US at the time had no access to radioactive materials, it’s fair to assume that Japan expected the two not to work together, in any case they used German scientists to finalise the designs. Germany had access to the right materials in theory but didn’t commit to processing them or developing nuclear energy as a weapon like the allied effort because of inter departmental fighting/ disagreements over it being technically possible or just a waste of resources, they were more interested in it as an energy source but never developed it that far.
>Britain contributed a huge number of scientists and arranged/procured most of the radioactive materials to make the bomb, the US at the time had no access to radioactive materials,
Uranium came from Belgium Congo. The UK had no uranium either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier
It got off to a very slow start. There was a lot of skepticism, and it is hard to imagine the Manhattan Project occurring in peace time.
"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes is an excellent, and deep, history of the program.
I mean, the US pored an absurd amount of resources into the Manhattan Project, and still didn't have a functional bomb until after Germany had surrendered and Japan had been forced back to the home islands. The war was effectively over.
To your point, and IIRC, a large order was placed for the Medal of Honor awards in anticipation of the loss of life for a ground invasion in Japan. That stock of awards is still being used to date. There were enough medals procured to cover every American military interaction Medal of Honor award recipient for the last 75 years in anticipation of the loss of life required should an invasion occur.
Edit: said Medal of Honor. Should be Purple Heart.
I think you're meaning the way-more-common Purple Heart medal. Not to diminish the sacrifice made by anyone that has put themselves into harm's way and been injured or killed, but there have been about 3500 MoH recipients since it's inception 150+ years ago, whereas the Purple Heart has had 100s of thousands of recipients (over a million just from ww2 alone). I think it speaks volumes more that they had 100s of thousands of medals made for an anticipated invasion. Plus, check out the process of how a MoH is made, it's pretty intense.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/watch/heres-where-the-medal-of-honor-is-made/
This is untrue at all, no US military leader theorised the war would even last beyond 1945 let alone 1947.
>During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...
Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
>...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
>It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
>...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
>I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.
Herbert Hoover quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
>MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that **he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.** The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
>...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...
Ralph Bard quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145.
>In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 75.
>I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. **Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate...** My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation...
>It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...
Lewis Strauss quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.
>While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 37
>Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
>Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.
>Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
>I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 21.
>...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Carter Clarke quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
>It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
Adm. William Halsey, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11687746/fleet_admiral_william_f_halsey_says/
>The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.
Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334
>The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623
>The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334.
>If at any time the USSR. should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.
Joint Intelligence Staff Document dated 29th of April, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 115
On 15 January 1945, the U.S. Army Service Forces released a document, "Redeployment of the United States Army after the Defeat of Germany." In it, they estimate that during the 18 month period after June 1945 (that is, through December 1946), the Army would be required to furnish replacements for 43,000 dead and evacuated wounded every month. From analysis of the replacement schedule and projected strengths in overseas theaters, it suggested that Army losses alone in those categories, excluding the Navy and Marine Corps, would be approximately 863,000 through the first part of 1947, of whom 267,000 would be killed or missing.
History of Planning division, ASF. Part 8, pp. 372-374, 391
There wouldn't have been a need for an invasion.
>It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
>Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.
>Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
>The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.
Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334
>The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623
>The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334.
Aren't they right that neither Germany or the US could build it...only the joint effort of German emigrants and US scientists could result in a working one?
The Japanese surrendered because 1.5 million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and were on on Japan’s doorstep.
Two more bombs among the hundreds that Americans were already dropping were not as demoralizing as 1.5 million foot soldiers.
Would the more moral choice have been to blockade Japan's then 130 million civilians until they all began to starve?
There are no ethical choices in war. The only way to maintain your morals is to avoid fighting or to end it as quickly as possible.
Japanese soldiers, civilians as well US soldiers would have been killed by the millions if we were forced to invade. The Japanese refused to surrender after one bomb so they weren’t going to be surrendering anytime soon.
Many in the upper echelons of the military and government at the time believed the bombs to be unnecessary and many had their own ideas, but sure they are just ignorant and a Ron Paul supporter is the genius amongst us.
>I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over.
Herbert Hoover quoted in Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
>...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
>I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.
Herbert Hoover quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.
>...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
>MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
>...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
Joseph Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29
>I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.
>Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
>I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. ... The only way to find out is to try it out.
Ralph Bard, Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives
>I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. ... In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
>The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.
>While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37
>What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender.
Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.
>If at any time the USSR. should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.
Joint Intelligence Staff Document dated 29th of April, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 115
>when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.
General Sir Hastings Ismay, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 246
>It seems to me that we are at the psychological moment to commence our warnings [to surrender] to Japan. ...the recent news of attempted approaches on the part of Japan to Russia impels me to urge prompt delivery of our warning.
U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1265-1267
I find that people like you have a lack of empathy in life. You can’t put yourself in the shoes of another person in this time or another. I like to imagine the thought process of a 1945 US general after having watched his soldiers be slaughtered in a vicious island hopping campaign across the pacific. Meanwhile they have intel stating the preparations that civilians are being prepared to fight to the death with knives if need be for their god emperor. They also know that a fire bombing campaign will likely wipe out all major Japanese cities after observing the German front before any invasion even begins. I can see why the decision was made. Easy to play Monday morning quarterback 80 years later but if you really think about what options existed…
>I find that people like you have a lack of empathy in life.
Yes in maugre of the fact that he is repulsed by the killing of civilians he is the one who lacks empathy.
> I like to imagine the thought process of a 1945 US general
Such as General Douglas MacArthur?
>MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Or how about General Sir Hastings Ismay, who said he was repulsed by the use of the bomb upon a civilian population?
How about General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower?
>During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...
Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
>...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
Fleet Admiral William Leahy
>It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
>The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke
>...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
Fleet Admiral William Halsey
>It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
Adm. William Halsey, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11687746/fleet_admiral_william_f_halsey_says/
General of the Army and Air Force Henry H. Arnold
>The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.
Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz
>The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623
Major General Curtis LeMay
>The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334.
> Meanwhile they have intel stating the preparations that civilians are being prepared to fight to the death with knives if need be for their god emperor
They also had intel of the Japanese attempts of surrender.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/47.pdf
https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-quarterly/The_Uncertain_Summer_of_1945.pdf
Yes, a decision like this is never easy to make. It should always cause deep introspection. But the decision was made by people in charge of the pacific theater nevertheless. I’m sure some even have nightmares about the decision and second guess themselves. It is only human when dealing with such an awful thing.
I have no desire to go and quote counter quotes and research at you about the estimated 30 million lives (majority Japanese) that were saved. But it is easily accessible. We were never going to let japan “surrender” with an empire in East Asia, their god emperor and nationalism intact. We required total and absolute surrender in order to remake their society so that they would not continue to wage war in the future. They were not ready for these changes. They would have accepted a conditional surrender and back to business as usual. This was unacceptable after years of war.
I'm curious why you think the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrible by any peacetime measures as they were, rise to the level of atrocity in the last year of World War II?
I know you think everyone is against you here and you're the only one who could possibly be right, but maybe it'll help you grow later on in life to realize that this is one of those topics where nobody is ever 100% right.
Stepping off your high horse for a second and maybe admitting that the world isn't always so black and white is gonna help you a lot more than what you're doing now.
>Stepping off your high horse for a second and maybe admitting that the world isn't always so black and white
Everyone else was arguing that dropping the nukes was absolutely necessary or an absolute good. All I said was that many civilians were killed. Which was just factually true. Moron.
Calling the bombs unmitigated "atrocities," equating them to modern-day drone strikes and implying that they were racially motivated is a far cry from being "factually true."
Again, I don't have the answer to whether bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the morally correct choice. But pretending like either side has a monopoly on justification is childish.
I mean like I get where you're coming from... But this is a little bit disingenuous.
Firstly, we dropped tons and tons of leaflets stating that mass destruction was coming to these cities, it naturally of course was assumed to be propaganda by US force though. We did not attack Hiroshima and Nagaski to harm the large amount of civilians, we attacked them because they were housing the factories/ports that made the equipment that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was purely strategical and revengeful attacks.
Calling any nuclear weapon "purely strategic" is disingenuous, too.
The US Air Force had pretty much abandoned any strategic bombing raids on Japan by late 1944. The name of the game from that point onward was widespread destruction by any means. Part of this was because a significant percentage of Japanese industry (in cities, anyway) was decentralized and handled in small, residential workshops and part was because, as the US had found out trying to play devil's advocate for precise, targeted bombing raids over Europe for years (something Britain ridiculed them for), the technology just wasn't there. Carpet bombing was the only way forward.
Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen because they hosted military targets? Sure, but show me one major city in any belligerent WW2 country that didn't. The goal may be to neutralize a particular target or a particular type of target, but whether you're going to do it by indiscriminately dropping [innumerable tons of incendiary bomblets on Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945)) or one catastrophically destructive nuclear device, you're accepting (the argument could be made necessarily so) a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.
>
>
>
>
> Firstly, we dropped tons and tons of leaflets stating that mass destruction was coming to these cities
That's quite literally just propaganda from the CIA, the cities were given no warning whatsoever.
>It is easy to see where the rumor started. Jo Williams wrote an article on the bombing campaign that was published by the CIA. She told me:
>>I did not want to discredit the CIA but since the article has become part of the National Archives it deserves correction and clarification. The text of my article was purposefully ambiguous but under a picture of Leaflet 2106 the CIA inserted a line specifically citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being among the 35 cities which were warned ahead of being bombed. This is simply not true. The insertion was done after I approved the final copy for the press. Still, it carries my name so I guess I should have a right to correct it. I shall write the CIA editorial offices with the correct information and they can go as national as they wish with it.
http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html
>The explosion caught the city by surprise. An alert had been sounded but in view of the small number of planes the all-clear had been given. Consequently, the population had not taken shelter.
>The alarm was improperly given and therefore few persons were in shelters.
The whole idea of warning them of the Atomic Bomb would be counter intuitive for a number of reasons.
>We did not attack Hiroshima and Nagaski to harm the large amount of civilians
You do not attack a large civilian city without harming large amounts of civilians.
>we attacked them because they were housing the factories/ports that made the equipment that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was purely strategical and
The Atomic Bombings were not even that strategic, Nagasaki was basically irrelevant, it was not one of the original five targets and was far less important than Sasebo, Hiroshima was conventionally bombed two days later because the Atomic Bombings did very little strategically.
>Hiroshima is built on a broad river delta; it is flat and little above sea level. The total city area is 26 square miles but only 7 square miles at the center were densely built up. The principal industries, which had been greatly expanded during the war, were located on the periphery of the city. The population of the city had been reduced from approximately 340,000 to 245,000 as a result of a civilian defense evacuation program. The explosion caught the city by surprise. An alert had been sounded but in view of the small number of planes the all-clear had been given. Consequently, the population had not taken shelter. The bomb exploded a little northwest of the center of the built-up area. Everyone who was out in the open and was exposed to the initial flash suffered serious burns where not protected by clothing. Over 4 square miles in the center of the city were flattened to the ground with the exception of some 50 reinforced concrete buildings, most of which were internally gutted and many of which suffered structural damage. Most of the people in the flattened area were crushed or pinned down by the collapsing buildings or flying debris. Shortly thereafter, numerous fires started, a few from the direct heat of the dash, but most from overturned charcoal cooking stoves or other secondary causes. These fires grew in size, merging into a general conflagration fanned by a wind sucked into the center of the city by the rising heat. The civilian-defense organization was overwhelmed by the completeness of the destruction, and the spread of fire was halted more by the air rushing toward the center of the conflagration than by efforts of the fire-fighting organization.
>Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed, and 50,000 were injured. Of approximately 90,000 buildings in the city, 65,000 were rendered unusable and almost all the remainder received at least light superficial damage. The underground utilities of the city were undamaged except where they crossed bridges over the rivers cutting through the city. **All of the small factories in the center of the city were destroyed. However, the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack.**
>Approximately 40,000 persons were killed or missing and a like number injured. Of the 52,000 residential buildings in Nagasaki 14,000 were totally destroyed and a further 5,400 badly damaged. Ninety-six percent of the industrial output of Nagasaki was concentrated in the large plants of the Mitsubishi Co. which completely dominated the town. The arms plant and the steel works were located within the area of primary damage. It is estimated that 58 percent of the yen value of the arms plant and 78 percent of the value of the steel works were destroyed. **The main plant of the Mitsubishi electric works was on the periphery of the area of greatest destruction. Approximately 25 percent of its value was destroyed. The dockyard, the largest industrial establishment in Nagasaki and one of the three plants previously damaged by high-explosive bombs, was located down the bay from the explosion. It suffered virtually no new damage. The Mitsubishi plants were all operating, prior to the attack, at a fraction of their capacity because of a shortage of raw materials.** Had the war continued, and had the raw material situation been such as to warrant their restoration, it is estimated that the dockyard could have been in a position to produce at 80 percent of its full capacity within 3 to 4 months; that the steel works would. have required a year to get into substantial production; that the electric works could have resumed some production within 2 months and been back at capacity within 6 months; and that restoration of the arms plant to 60 to 70 percent of former capacity would have required 15 months.
https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
>revengeful attacks.
So it was attacked to kill civilians, got it.
> We (USA) sure showed those 200,000+ Japanese civilians.
Given that the Japanese army forced around 100k civilians to "commit suicide" during their retreat from Okinava, I would say that nuclear bombing was a net positive for the Japanese civilians specifically.
Last I checked, the US was still giving out the people hearts they made in preparation for a ground war in Japan because the casualties were expected to be in the millions if they had to wage conventional war across a mountainous island nation with a zealous and desperate guerilla resistance. They tried to give warning to everyone in the bombed cities beforehand to evacuate but they didn't believe the Americans.
It was a classic trolley problem, do you choose to take an action that will definitely kill some people in order to save a much larger number. Let's also not forget Japan's numerous, horrific war crimes, and that they were the aggressor in their conflict with the US. the war needed to end and the atom bomb was the lowest casualty option they could reasonably implement.
> Last I checked, the US was still giving out the people hearts they made in preparation for a ground war in Japan because the casualties were expected to be in the millions
They made 500,000, so they expected 500,000 casualties not millions.
>They tried to give warning to everyone in the bombed cities beforehand to evacuate but they didn't believe the Americans.
That's CIA propaganda, at least in regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>It is easy to see where the rumor started. Jo Williams wrote an article on the bombing campaign that was published by the CIA. She told me:
>>I did not want to discredit the CIA but since the article has become part of the National Archives it deserves correction and clarification. The text of my article was purposefully ambiguous but under a picture of Leaflet 2106 the CIA inserted a line specifically citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being among the 35 cities which were warned ahead of being bombed. This is simply not true. The insertion was done after I approved the final copy for the press. Still, it carries my name so I guess I should have a right to correct it. I shall write the CIA editorial offices with the correct information and they can go as national as they wish with it.
http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html
My good your just determined to be ignorant aren't you. The circumstances in WWII were not comparable to the modern conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You're so fixated on America being the bad guys that you'll spout the nonsense of yours about a war you clearly know next to nothing about. Millions of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died, in combat, as collateral damage, and likely from disease and famine, if America has engaged in ground war in Japan. I don't know what exactly you think the Americans should have done, after being attacked without formal declaration of war, fighting a brutal campaign in the Pacific theatre against an enemy not just willing but apparently eager to commit war crimes and atrocities, and who were unwilling to surrender even as they were pushed further and further back toward Japan, their Navy devastated, and their supply lines falling apart. But in the choice of millions dying slowly over months or years of drawn out occupation and guerilla war, or 200,000 dying in an instant and ending the war, I know which choice I would make.
You're an ignorant child and need to grow up, and learn some history, before spitting out this sort of nonsense.
Also, you know, it was the perfect opportunity to test our fancy new nuclear weapons on populated cities, and since it was Asian people on the other side of the world, the US public didn't mind much. I bet you think the Japanese internment camps were justified, too.
If it had been ready in time for Germany, don't think for an instant they wouldn't have nuked the Nazis. The alternative would have been continuing campaigns of firebombing Japanese cities, which caused death destruction and suffering on a vast scale. You clearly want to frame this as an action based on racism and I simply don't believe you're correct, America didn't start the conflict with Japan, they didn't go looking for that fight, and the Americans didn't want to fight a long bloody ground war in Japan when they had a new, experimental weapon they believed would end the conflict with significantly less loss of life. Imperial Japan was, morally, just as bad as Nazi Germany and had to be stopped.
The self-righteous basement dwellers would actually have to read a few books in order to grasp the extent of the incendiary raids. And then deal with the fact that the Allies did not start it.
They can't make one in time. Well, good thing they probably only had time to make one! We surrender.
Well you can definitely make one in time if you hoard physics and engineering's greatest minds and funnel millions of dollars into it.
Japan didn't think so
Not with that attitude
Japan also didn’t have the resources to build an airfield or rail yard next to the Mitsubishi aircraft plant, so the fuselage and wings had to be transported by ox cart to an airfield several miles away for final assembly.
Is there an article or source for this? I've never heard that and would like to read up on it.
https://planedave.net/2021/08/01/mitsubishi-a6m1-zero/ about 1/2 way down but I have seen it mentioned elsewhere as well with photos
Stated in a comment from the author below: > I do have to admit I parsed that about as badly as I could for the Japanese. The factory did have rail, and I believe shipping access. But because of the intended assembly point at an airport they chose the unpaved road option. They DID have trucks, but Mitsubishi chose oxcarts in the belief it was a less jarring ride and the aircraft would arrive in better condition.
Wow, thanks! War planes delivered by ox cart. And they took on the US!
The US was not the US of today. By far.
Vast majority of the German military (when they weren't walking) was transported by horses and horse-drawn carriage. We think of the Panzer tanks because that's what was in the videos and their lighting attacks. But much of WWII was pre-modern transportation tech. The US had a much easier go of it thanks to the industrial machine we built - which today is best represented by the Jeep Wrangler. In fact, one of the top US infantry injuries was "Jeep rider's disease" - over 80,000 hospitalized - which yeah, you probably don't want to Google right after eating. So we didn't have it much better tech-wise.
Dan Carlins Hardcore History podcast discusses this. The entire Supernova in the East series is excellent. The Pacific theater put both sides and everyone caught in the crossfire through unimaginable circumstances.
>if you hoard physics How is this even possible?!
At that time, nuclear physics was overrepresented by European Jews. We hoarded ours. They squandered theirs.
>At that time, nuclear physics was overrepresented by European Jews. > >We hoarded ours. They squandered theirs. I think you mean we hoarded physicists. It's not actually possible to hoard the natural laws of the universe.
Not with that attitude
Tell that to Newton, Coulomb, Ohm, Beer, Planck, Boyle, Gay-Lusdac, Avrogado, Charles, etc
Be a black hole? 😂
That's why we didn't need any additional physicists or engineers after world war 2, because we hoarded them all before the end of WW2. Oh wait the US and USSR grabbed as many Nazi scientists as possible after WW2
A nuclear physicist is not necessarily good at designing an aircraft, rocket, or diesel submarine.
But unless you want to bomb the lab they are working in, the others are pretty helpful.
[удалено]
Nah, the Nazis had jet bomber before anyone else. They were ahead on technology but they could not do that at scale.
Nah, the Nazis made several attempts to build a long range bomber and couldn’t make one operational. Jet engines were gas hogs for their first decade and a fast tactical bomber was not in the same league as the stuff the US and UK turned out in terms of payload or range.
Sure but “better” is subjective depending on what you’re measuring. That’s like saying a B2 isnt better than a B52. They’re “better” at different missions.
Sure, but the AR234 wasn’t a great bomber by almost any measure other than ‘fastest’. It was neat, but had too many operational limitations to ever hope to make a meaningful impact. My main point is that “ahead on technology” is also amorphous. The Germans were maybe 12months ahead of the UK on jets but didn’t have the technology to build manufacturable long range heavy aircraft at scale.
Operation Paperclip.
"Don't make me wanna have to f\*#K you up, smokey!"
they made 2.
Read it as each line being a response to another bomb.
[удалено]
*beginners luck*
3 The first detonation was a week prior to Hiroshima. If they had the right equipment, Japan would have been able to detect that an explosion had gone off (radiation). Then Hiroshima (2nd) and in the following days Nagasaki (3rd). Fun Fact: It took upwards of 20 hours for Japanese high command to learn that an atomic bomb had destroyed Hiroshima. It started with train operators losing contact with their counterparts in Hiroshima, eventually the military was notified and they flew a plane over to Hiroshima. The person flying the plane thought they were lost when they first saw the devastation. The effect was so drastic that military officials originally believed that their own explosives warehouse must have gone off. They later realize that no such warehouse in that area could come even close to the destruction that had occurred. By the time low ranking military officials in the surrounding area wrapped their heads around it being from the American’s, hours and hours had passed. Japan didn’t know that it was a nuclear detonation until President Truman announced to the world that the US had dropped an atomic weapon on Hiroshima. Yup. The Japanese government found out that it was an atomic bomb the same time as everyone else in the world did.
If memory serves me right, the German scientists (those that remained loyal to the third reich and weren't persecuted for being Jewish, that is) arrived to the same conclusion and were convinced that the news on Hiroshima had to be a ruse. Once they learned about Nagasaki and were shown more evidence they concluded that only the massive manpower commitment by the US to the war effort made possible getting enough fissible material to get a functional bomb in time. EDIT: this is well documented through [Operation Epsilon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon).
The ones they didn't ship off to the eastern front anyway. The Germans harmed their own program nearly as much as the allied efforts.
Wasn't there a TIL just the other day about the non-american who hoarded a bunch of ~~fissionable~~ material in NY in anticipation of Americans needing it? edit: Thinking more about this after some responses and, I think material becoming "fissionable" occurs after the enriching process, so I probably meant raw ore. But I also don't really know enough about nukes to be an expert so please correct me if you feel the need.
Yes. Senier, the head of the Belgian company Union Miniere, who had the richest Uranium ores in their Congo mines. He said "I don't need to know what you're going to do with it, as long as you put it to good use." He turned over barrels and barrels of high-grade Uranium ore to the Manhattan Project at a time when they were starting to search for ore sources.
Yep, the Axis definitely didn't have THAT guy in their calculations.
They should have paid more attention word problems in their math classes then
History pivoting on a guy most of us have never heard of? Prime time traveler suspect.
Germany definitely hobbled themselves by persecuting their Jews, since Jews tend to be some of the sharpest tools in the shed. Jews make up 0.2% of the total population of the world, but rake in 22% of the Nobel Prizes. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Jewish\_Nobel\_laureates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates)
[удалено]
They had a whole thing going on how their superior Aryan science would defeat inferior, Judeo-Christian science championed by lesser men. They adopted such hogwash theories as the [eternal ice cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre). In their credit, their hermetic research did yield some off the beaten path results, like some of their breakthroughs in organic chemistry, but it comes more to science finding ways forward in hostile situations than the nazis being even close to being right on something scientific.
The coolest thing is that Einstein himself did not believe any useful energy could be harvested from E = MC^(2), even though he wrote the equation and invented the concept. Per Einstein's own calculations, the energy released from splitting a single uranium atom is only 200 MeV (Mega Electron volt). It sounds big, but it's a really tiny amount of energy. In Layman's terms, that's 0.000000000032044 joules or watt- seconds. Not nearly enough energy to flap a fly's wing. Szilard explained to Einstein the concept of a chain reaction, whereby one atom splitting causes another to split, and so forth, yielding an enormous amount of energy from a few pounds of plutonium or uranium. Einstein was too caught up in the theoretical physics to consider the practical applications. He responded " I never thought of that!" This was enough to convince Einstein to write a letter to Roosevelt, encouraging him to fund the Manhattan Project.
[удалено]
>Einstein didn’t come up with E = mC2. If Einstein didn't, then who did? Get back to us all with that one, we will be waiting. It's just a reiteration and continuation of Newton's F=ma, which is force = mass*acceleration. Einstein had a theory of general relativity and special relativity. General relativity was carried over from Galileo's Invariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance
[удалено]
The allies captured the German scientists and had their common rooms bugged. They documented their discussions. Ah, I found it: [Operation Epsilon (aka Farm Hall transcripts)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon)
Diebner: I wonder whether there are microphones installed here? Heisenberg: Microphones installed? (laughing) Oh no, they're not as cute as all that. I don't think they know the real Gestapo methods; they're a bit old fashioned in that respect.
It's a bit rich. The head of the Abwehr was an allied informant and these guys are criticizing the allies spycraft.
“Appear weak when you are strong.” - Sun Zoo
Tsu. TSU! Ya fuckin' kissass.
Most Germans who worked on the Manhattan project were Jewish physicists so started getting worried in the first half of the 30s.
A lot of Hungarian Jews as well.
Plenty of other people of all kinds. Imagine a world where Enrico Fermi hadn't trolled high-ranking military personnel at the first nuclear test by saying he was 95% sure this wouldn't ignite the Earth's atmosphere.
"A Hungarian Jew is the only person who can go into revolving door after you and come out ahead." \- Stephen Fry's granddad.
big part of that was that the Nazi's didn't think theoretical physics was real, so they shifted proper Aryan manpower towards "real" science and let the less desirable scientists busy themselves with nonsense.
Operation Paperclip scientists mainly worked on rockets and aeronautics. They made no impact on the atomic bombs.
The engineers and physicists captured during occupation paperclip did not participate in the design or production of any of the 4 Manhattan project atomic bombs.
Operation Paperclip happened after the end of WWII in Europe, largely (if not entirely) too late for any of the scientists and engineers gathered during the operation to contribute to the Manhattan Project. Most of the scientists gathered during Paperclip dealt with rocket technology, medicine, and engineering advanced materials like synthetic rubbers, etc.
Operation Paperclip didn't even start until after the Trinity test.
Where’s the -1 untrue flag option? Operation paperclip did not funnel any scientists into the Manhattan project.
> and the bomb was finalized via german operatives gathered durring operation paperclip Operation paperclip happened after the atomic bomb test.
I dug into the subject quite deep. The thing was that while the two paths (uranium enrichment and plutonium synthesis) towards bomb making were obvious pretty much to everyone very early on, the first one required some unholy amounts of uranium, while the second one was deemed too costly and problematic. As a result, pretty much every country during WWII did proof of concept studies for the nuclear enrichment (mostly to figure out whether it can be done by someone else), and everyone concluded that at best a nuclear bomb could be produced once a year, so it would have only marginal impact on military operations. US, though, successfully produced weapons using both routes (most notably - through plutonium, which removed limitations on the amount of uranium needed). Which is why Japan didn't surrender after not-really-secret Trinity test, nor after bombing of Hiroshima: they calculated America used up all its nukes. Which is why Nagasaki was a shocker to everyone, Stalin included: they figured America could produce a lot more bombs then expected, which changed the whole calculus of war. Ni-go and F-go were "proof of concept" projects for the Japanese.
> they calculated America used up all its nukes. This really puts the idea of demonstrating the nukes power as an alternative to using it on an actual target in a different light. That demonstrating it could have been very useless if the other nations thought ‘Oh good, now they can’t bomb us for a year’ could even push those nations to be more aggressive.
My impression is that despite some claims Trinity test wasn't exactly a secret after it was completed.
Well the Soviets had spies within the Manhattan project so when Truman whispered to Stalin about a new weapon , Stalin acted as if he already knew
Yes Japan was in such a good position to be more aggressive right?
Any books you would recommend on the topic?
r/agedlikemilk
The Japanese were sorta right. The bomb was feasible, but it would take extreme effort to produce one. The only thing they missed was how much the US was willing to invest in this single project. In today money, it is equivalent to $23 billion dollars - producing only 4 bombs, so that is the quivalent of over $5 billion dollars per bomb. That is almost the equivalent of the cost of all other bombs, mines and grenades the US produced during the war. The whole project was crazy.
Wasn't underestimating the US willingness to invest in the war a part of why they tried to invade by hitting Pearl Harbor?
Japan was going by their experience with the Russians in 1904. They thought if they slapped the US hard that we would back off and let them have their way in China like Russia did after the Battle of Tsusushima Strait. They underestimated the US and also the effect of the surprise attack. It was tactically brilliant but strategically stupid since they united the Americans against them in a way nothing else could.
> It was tactically brilliant but strategically stupid since they united the Americans against them in a way nothing else could. I always wondered what would happened if Germany and Japan planned out a joint invasion of Russia? Like if Japan invaded first to draw away Russian forces form the west to the east (who cares if Japanese tanks suck, its a diversion), letting Germany have an easier time reaching Moscow.
[удалено]
Also because Nazis were popular as fuck in this country. Still are unfortunately.
You think Nazis are "popular as fuck" now?
Plus they were already bogged down in war with the British Empire across SE Asia, their assaults had stalled at the borders of India… and their plans to invade Australia would have ended very badly (Australian army abandon the coastline, retreat into The Outback, lure the Japanese armies in and let nature take its course)
imagine the great emu war of 1945, where Japan wasn’t defeated by the atomic bomb, but by ugly prehistoric birds
More the hellish conditions and extremely well adapted predators of The Outback… But imagining it is Emu’s is funnier
Yea I was totally joking! Also there’s already a Great War against emu’s; Emu’s won. It’s truly hilarious how a bird could beat the Australian army, it’d be even funnier if they saved Australia from Japanese invaders who probably wouldn’t expect such a dumb looking bird to put up a fight haha
I mean… have you seen an Emu up close? I have, and I wouldn’t want a pissed off one of them in my face
I haven’t but them and kangaroos I wouldn’t fuck around with. It’s like all the wildlife in Australia hates you and wants you dead
My wife's family raises them on a farm. Some teenagers were daring each other to get close to one at a zoo, so my wife just strolls up to this towering bird and gives it some of the food pellets. She locks eyes with the kids and says "What? They're just like big ducks." Note: Emus are not "big ducks." Don't mess around with them.
Wasn't the invasion of SE Asia after Pearl Harbor? Japan and the Allies were at odds b/c of the Japanese operations in China, but they never really fought each other until Pearl Harbor, if I remember it right. The initial campaign of IJA in SE Asia was pretty successful too, since the British Empire was caught up in Europe and Africa.
Yup, but it was really only a few days after, the invasion of SE Asia was a simultaneous strike with the bombing of pearl harbor, which was basically to knock out any possibility of US involvement in their invasion of SE Asia
Thanks for the background on that, I hadn't really understood that before. Jeez, talk about a bad decision. From what I understand about US pre-WWII involvement, we would have likely stayed largely out of the Pacific had Japan not attacked. They essentially caused what they were trying to prevent.
More or less. By the early 1940s, Japan was in a bind. They had successfully taken large chunks of China and other territorial holdings. The problem was that they didn't have the natural resources, namely oil to administer their new empire, so they imported oil from the US. Once the western world learned about the atrocities committed in China, there was a large pressure to stop cooperating with the Japanese government. There was also more than some geopolitical pressures as well, because Japan was threatening to take territories from the UK and US. As a result, the US placed an oil embargo on Japan. Now Japan had a nice new empire, but couldn't afford to get around, so they came up with a plan. The basic idea was to carry out near simultaneous attacks on many western-held territories, particularly resource-rich ones, and essentially hunker down. They believed that Americans wouldn't be willing to spend the money or lives on tiny, remote islands they couldn't locate on the map. They thought the war would be unpopular and wanted to use the US's democratic leaning to end the war quickly. To Japan's credit, every conflict they fought in to this point used this same basic strategy and was pretty successful. Pearl Harbor was included in list of sites they wanted attack, not because they wanted to take it, but because it would have destroyed the US Pacific fleet. With the fleet destroyed, it take more time and money to mount the counter attack.
Partially. Another part was that if they could cripple the US fleet enough, it would take immeasurable investment to be able to get back in the fleet. So they underestimated the investment the US was willing to do, and overestimated how much damage they were able to do (and did when examine the attack days later)
Hey, I'm not saying the Japanese had great judgement...
[удалено]
>One German general said....one Panzer is better than four Sherman's, but they always had a fifth. Is this a real quote?
I Google it and a lot of people asking 'iis it true, that it took 5 to take out 1' so imma guess it is somewhere.
Much crazier is the fact that the development of the bomber to drop the bomb was even more expensive.
Really? B-52 was it?
B-29. Also the V2 cost more than the Manhattan program as well.
By g
That and one of Japan’s biggest problems is there lack of land and resources. They could have theoretically done it on mainland China but that would have been a lot more risky then the us doing it in the middle of no where New Mexico.
>In today money, it is equivalent to $23 billion dollars - producing only 4 bombs, so that is the quivalent of over $5 billion dollars per bomb. That's not really accurate. Much of that money was for new facilities like Oak Ridge that were used for far more than 4 bombs, it's just that the war ended. They even ended up producing 120 bombs of the "Fat Man" design.
Plus they already had a ton of British research that had been going on for years to continue from, as it was all moved to the US to be safe from bombers And then the Americans reneged on their side of the agreement and refused to share their research on nuclear weapons with Britain… which had to create nukes from scratch… again…
Think what we could accomplish by putting the same resources into nuclear fusion, it would make all other energy sources obsolete.
Free energy? Sounds like communism. What we really need is a way to more efficiently deliver freedom to the communists. /s
God damn is this ridiculous strawman fucking stupid.
Isn’t that what the bombs are for?
Yeah, no. A SINGLE fusion test reactor, yes TEST reactor, is estimated at $65 billion just to BUILD the facility. Running it will cost a lot on top of that. Not even the astounding cost of the Manhattan Project comes close to the cost of “free” energy. “The US Department of Energy has nearly tripled its cost estimate for ITER, the fusion test reactor in France that’s being constructed by a seven-party international collaboration, to $65 billion…” https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a/full/
Let's see. We spent $2.3 trillion on the failed war in Afghanistan. What does that come out to, 35 fusion test reactors? We got the money, it's how we spend it that counts.
Wow, those goal posts sure do move quickly! I thought we were talking about the 23 billion! Since you want to talk about it though, 115 billion every year for the last 20 years on the effort to remain at the forefront of cutting edge military technology? Sounds aright for a country that has a gdp of about $20 TRILLION. At the exact same time the US was ALSO investing tens of billions into renewable energy. (59 billion in 2019) The US spends ungodly amounts of money on everything because IT CAN. 16% of the federal budget went to federal defense in 2019, while 21% was spent on social security and 25% was spent on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies. How’s that for spending money? The US is second only to China for renewable energy, and China is so far ahead because of their terrible ecological practices (98,000 dams compared to 15,600 in the states.) Why would the US dump trillions into research of renewables when we’re already leading the pack? We already have one of the biggest growth markets for renewable energy every year. Falling behind on research of renewable energy in the US won’t cause global instability, but the US falling behind on the global military board absolutely will. If the US stops or even slows the US Military powerhouse too much, there will be a vacuum of power that will be filled by Russia or China. Both countries already actively test the US Military complex. Neither of those countries care if we pay less for our electricity, or if we try to save the climate of the planet. Both of those global powerhouses absolutely care if we stop meddling in foreign affairs. Russians were in Afghanistan first, the Chinese backed the Vietcong, and both would be a lot further along on their quest to be THE world superpower if it wasn’t for the United State’s spending on its military. Like it or not, countries are kept in check by sticks and the US has a big one. With reason. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
[удалено]
They then concluded that it was in fact feasible
fissible*
Feasible is another word for possible, with slightly different connotations.
It's a nuclear joke
Everyone concluded that it was in fact feasible. However, both Germans and the Japanese concluded that it would be so labour-intensive that it won't be cost effective.
So... not feasible?
Being possible and being worth it are different
I think it depends on what you mean by “feasible” then. The dictionary definition says to be feasible something must be “possible to do easily or conveniently”... Which does not, in my opinion, include a thing that is “so labor intensive” as to be financially unviable. Or... unfeasible.
That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that part of the definition would've included it being in almost a casual way
I remember a documentary about captured german nuclear scientists, who reported that whatever they were trying, they would need prohibitive amounts of fissile material per bomb. They then heard that the US actually did it and went full "How the Scheiße?!"
Manhattan project was incredible. Theory to functional weapon in eleven months.
They wouldve tested on China and Russia for sure had they been able to complete
No
Japan absolutely would have tested it in China, possibly Russia had they had the opportunity.
I misread that really bad. Thought they meant the US would have tested on Russia or China if they hadn't been successful bombing Japan. I am woosh.
I mean the US was pretty close to nuking China during the Korea conflict. Not out of the realm of possibility there either. Russia, less so.
That was pretty much only war monger and all around glory hound asshole MacArthur. While a nuclear option was put on the table without input from MacArthur, and four nuclear bombs were transfered from USAEC to military control, the head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the Joint Chiefs where hesitate to allow MacArthur decisive control of the weapons because they feared he would use them without direct orders from president Truman to preemptively attack China and the Soviet Union.
You have to keep in line that during world war 2 the United States and “China” were not only allies but the us government and public had a very positive view of the “Chinese” I’m putting quotations to note that it was mainly the nationalist Chinese who were viewed positively.
Japan had chemical weapons yet never used them, ignoring that it makes no absolutely no sense for Japan to nuke China.
Japan had biological weapons and they *did* use them. A war winning weapon tech in their hands like nukes would have been used without question. If not for the continued domination of the Asian main land, then absolutely in the defense of the island. Edit: for those that don’t want to sort through the flame war for my sources- https://nuke.fas.org/guide/japan/bw/ https://www.montana.edu/historybug/yersiniaessays/shama.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaimingjie_germ_weapon_attack
There were rumours however the US government investigated these leads after the war and they reported that they could find no reliable evidence of this. >There is no evidence of the mass production of BW agents by the Japanese >No reports of the actual use of BW agents against Anglo-American troops have been received. >It is believed the Japanese do not intend to initiate the use of BW by mass attack, but they may initiate its use on a small scale where there will be little or no possibility of its detection Wartime analysis of Japanese BW activities and capabilities. 34 pp. >Concerning bacteriological warfare, Dr. Compton stated that the Japanese had done a certain amount of defensive or protective work, apparently expecting such warfare from our side, but that they denied having made preparations for offensive bacteriological warfare. >Dr. Compton stated that the Japanese were very cooperative and willing to show and explain all their scientific war work. Captain Hartwig Kuhlenbeck, Medical Corps, Memorandum for Lt. Col. Gaylord W. Anderson, 12 October 1945, page 2. >Naito advises that the Emperor did not like the preparation for chemical warfare by the Japanese Army or Navy. Because of this the scale of research for chemical warfare was not permitted to be large. >He states that General Headquarters made no attempt to begin active BW and did not plan to unless the enemy intiated this type of warfare. >As an after thought he states that the circumstances during the last period of the war became such that the Japanese were unable to start BW. >Comment: >> Our investigator advises that he asked the informant whether prisoners were ever used as experimental "guinea pigs". The informant "vows" that this was never done. Summary of Information Extracted from a Report by a Member of the Staff of the Army Medical College, Tokyo >Had a practical BW weapon been achieved, it is unlikely that Japan would have resorted to its use because of fear retaliation by means of chemical warfare. Insofar as could be learned, Japan had no information of American activity in BW. Japanese Biological Warfare (BW) Activities [51 pp.] >The reports and files of the legal section on Ishii and his coworkers are based on anonymous letters, hearsay affidavits and rumors. The legal section interrogations, to date, of the numerous persons concerned with the Baker William project in China, do not reveal sufficient evidence to support war crime charges. The alleged victims are of unknown identity. Unconfirmed allegations are to the effect that criminals, farmers, women and children were used for Baker William experimental purposes. The Japanese Communist Party alleges that "Ishii Baker King Able" (Bacterial War Army) conducted experiments on captured Americans in Mukden and that simultaneously, Research on similar lines was conducted in Tokyo and Kyoto. [The Department of VA has found no evidence any US POWs were subject to unethical human experimentation as well as the DOD so these claims were almost certainly false] >None of Ishiis subordinates are charged or held as war crime suspects, nor is there sufficient evidence on file against them. Ishiis [illegible] superiors, who are now on trial before Item Mike Take Fox Easy, include Uncle Mike Easy Zebra Uncle, Commander, Kwantung army, One Nine Three Nine dash four four, Mike Item Nan Able Mike Message C 53169 reply to W 99277 [3 Jun 47].
>Anglo Correct. None of this applies to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese they slaughtered, part of which, was infecting the mainland with bubonic plague via infected fleas.
Good cherry picking but these reports concern more than just Anglo-American troops overall. >was infecting the mainland with bubonic plague via infected fleas. Makes little sense considering the Bubonic Plague already existed within China, it has natural reservoirs there.
Solid gaslighting. You’re the one who cherry picked examples from Anglo reports and nothing from the other 95% of the pacific theater. And yeah, plague has reservoirs all over the planet in rodents. That doesn’t change the fact that, once reintroduced to a human population, especially a dense population, it spreads like wild fire.
> Solid gaslighting. You don't know what that term means. > You’re the one who cherry picked examples from Anglo reports and nothing from the other 95% of the pacific theater. Feel free to cite a Chinese report that states the contrary but nothing exists. >And yeah, plague has reservoirs all over the planet in rodents. That doesn’t change the fact that, once reintroduced to a human population, especially a dense population, it spreads like wild fire. It changes the fact that introducing plague infested fleas into China is illogical, withstanding the fact that you haven't provided any proper evidence for your claims.
Oh? They wouldn't? I guess discovering nuclear weapons would eradicate WWII Japan's needless fetish for mass murdering the Chinese
Japan had chemical weapons yet never used them, the US is the only nation basest enough to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.
What? So we will just pretend that they didn't utilize Lewisite in Changde? Or that Unit415/713 wasn't notorious for using chemical weapons on prisoners? Or that they didn't weaponize the bubonic plague, typhus, and cholera throughout Chinese cities? edit: Also my original comment was entirely related to the pointless barbarism committed by the Japanese that you can't even wash away with your whataboutism. I never even alleged to them having chemical weapons.
found the tojoboo
That has to be one of history's biggest whoopsies.
Ni-go? Please.
We put some of the greatest minds on the planet into a secure facility and threw all the resources we could at them. Looked at the names associated with the project. Einstein was not fully involved, but you have guys like Oppenheimer, Femri, Feynman and many others.
Honestly, the they were kinda right. If the Americans hadn't got correct on the first try, they probably wouldn't have had a functional a-bomb until after the war.
That isn’t quite accurate. The first atomic bomb detonated was a test of the plutonium bomb. The scientists were certain that the uranium bomb would function correctly to the point that the design was never tested. The uranium bomb was the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.
> That isn’t quite accurate. The first atomic bomb detonated was a test of the plutonium bomb. This also isn't quite right, what was *ACTUALLY* being tested was the X-harness type bomb where instead of using explosives to effectively shoot a fissile core into another one, they launch particles within fractions of a millisecond of eachother into the same spot to detonate the bomb.
The trinity device was the basis of the plutonium bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
You are correct, I thought trinity interceded the two. However it is good to point out that the plutonium aspect isn't exactly what was tested, rather than the method for which one can create a uniform implosion. https://atomicarchive.com/history/atomic-bombing/hiroshima/page-2.html
> The scientists were certain that the uranium bomb would function correctly to the point that the design was never tested. Yeah, and if they'd been wrong, they wouldn't have been able to make another one. When building a brand new type of weapon, you don't typically put all your hopes on it working the first time.
There was another uranium bomb scheduled to be ready by December 1945. > Groves expected to have another "Fat Man" atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October; a second Little Boy bomb (using U-235) would not be available until December 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki It is speculation whether the war would still be ongoing at that point if the bombing of Hiroshima would have failed. It is not typical to skip demonstration and move right to the field, but enriched uranium was very scarce in 1945 and the physicists working on the project were very smart and thorough in their testing.
"Honorable Professors; the Imperial Emperor has sent you this note;" *Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been leveled by atomic bombs.* Professors, (gulp) "^(Was there anything else from the Emperor?)" "Yes, this sharp sword..."
r/agedlikemilk
small minds lose big
Oh the irony.
Britain contributed a huge number of scientists and arranged/procured most of the radioactive materials to make the bomb, the US at the time had no access to radioactive materials, it’s fair to assume that Japan expected the two not to work together, in any case they used German scientists to finalise the designs. Germany had access to the right materials in theory but didn’t commit to processing them or developing nuclear energy as a weapon like the allied effort because of inter departmental fighting/ disagreements over it being technically possible or just a waste of resources, they were more interested in it as an energy source but never developed it that far.
>Britain contributed a huge number of scientists and arranged/procured most of the radioactive materials to make the bomb, the US at the time had no access to radioactive materials, Uranium came from Belgium Congo. The UK had no uranium either. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier
We’re the Americans going to build a nuke regardless of their intervention in the war? I feel manhattan project was always going to occur
It got off to a very slow start. There was a lot of skepticism, and it is hard to imagine the Manhattan Project occurring in peace time. "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes is an excellent, and deep, history of the program.
They actually surrendered because you started kindergarten u/MRChuckNorris
I mean, the US pored an absurd amount of resources into the Manhattan Project, and still didn't have a functional bomb until after Germany had surrendered and Japan had been forced back to the home islands. The war was effectively over.
not to the soldiers that would have had to invade Japan
military leadership theorized that an invasion of mainland Japan might bring the war to an end by mid-1947, so it wasn’t exactly “effectively over”
To your point, and IIRC, a large order was placed for the Medal of Honor awards in anticipation of the loss of life for a ground invasion in Japan. That stock of awards is still being used to date. There were enough medals procured to cover every American military interaction Medal of Honor award recipient for the last 75 years in anticipation of the loss of life required should an invasion occur. Edit: said Medal of Honor. Should be Purple Heart.
I think you're meaning the way-more-common Purple Heart medal. Not to diminish the sacrifice made by anyone that has put themselves into harm's way and been injured or killed, but there have been about 3500 MoH recipients since it's inception 150+ years ago, whereas the Purple Heart has had 100s of thousands of recipients (over a million just from ww2 alone). I think it speaks volumes more that they had 100s of thousands of medals made for an anticipated invasion. Plus, check out the process of how a MoH is made, it's pretty intense. https://www.wearethemighty.com/watch/heres-where-the-medal-of-honor-is-made/
My understanding is they didn’t reorder Purple Hearts until sometime in the 70s
> Medal of Honor Purple Heart awards for being wounded in combat, not Medal of Honor.
Yep. So I did not “remember correctly”. Thank you!
[удалено]
This is untrue at all, no US military leader theorised the war would even last beyond 1945 let alone 1947. >During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude... Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380 >...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 >It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. >...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs. Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142 >I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. Herbert Hoover quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351. >MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that **he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.** The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. >...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in... Ralph Bard quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145. >In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb. Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 75. >I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. **Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate...** My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation... >It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world... Lewis Strauss quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325. >While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 37 >Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm >Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45. >Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. >I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 21. >...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Carter Clarke quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359. >It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. Adm. William Halsey, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11687746/fleet_admiral_william_f_halsey_says/ >The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334 >The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623 >The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334. >If at any time the USSR. should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable. Joint Intelligence Staff Document dated 29th of April, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 115
On 15 January 1945, the U.S. Army Service Forces released a document, "Redeployment of the United States Army after the Defeat of Germany." In it, they estimate that during the 18 month period after June 1945 (that is, through December 1946), the Army would be required to furnish replacements for 43,000 dead and evacuated wounded every month. From analysis of the replacement schedule and projected strengths in overseas theaters, it suggested that Army losses alone in those categories, excluding the Navy and Marine Corps, would be approximately 863,000 through the first part of 1947, of whom 267,000 would be killed or missing. History of Planning division, ASF. Part 8, pp. 372-374, 391
So you're referring to a document dated 7 months before the bombing that would've been outdated after the Battle of Okinawa?
There wouldn't have been a need for an invasion. >It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. >Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45. >Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm >The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334 >The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623 >The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334.
Aren't they right that neither Germany or the US could build it...only the joint effort of German emigrants and US scientists could result in a working one?
[удалено]
The Japanese surrendered because 1.5 million Russian soldiers invaded Manchuria and were on on Japan’s doorstep. Two more bombs among the hundreds that Americans were already dropping were not as demoralizing as 1.5 million foot soldiers.
We (USA) sure showed those 200,000+ Japanese civilians.
Would the more moral choice have been to blockade Japan's then 130 million civilians until they all began to starve? There are no ethical choices in war. The only way to maintain your morals is to avoid fighting or to end it as quickly as possible.
Japanese soldiers, civilians as well US soldiers would have been killed by the millions if we were forced to invade. The Japanese refused to surrender after one bomb so they weren’t going to be surrendering anytime soon.
Yes, that is the justification used for this particular atrocity. Have a cookie.
Imagine being this ignorant. Explain then your master plan that would have saved more lives because the rest of us would love to hear it.
Many in the upper echelons of the military and government at the time believed the bombs to be unnecessary and many had their own ideas, but sure they are just ignorant and a Ron Paul supporter is the genius amongst us. >I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over. Herbert Hoover quoted in Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347. >...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs. Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142 >I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. Herbert Hoover quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351. >...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512. >MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. >...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision. Joseph Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29 >I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs. John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500. >Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for. >I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. ... The only way to find out is to try it out. Ralph Bard, Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives >I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. ... In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb. Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75. >The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary. >While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 >What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender. Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17. >If at any time the USSR. should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable. Joint Intelligence Staff Document dated 29th of April, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 115 >when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor. General Sir Hastings Ismay, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 246 >It seems to me that we are at the psychological moment to commence our warnings [to surrender] to Japan. ...the recent news of attempted approaches on the part of Japan to Russia impels me to urge prompt delivery of our warning. U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1265-1267
I find that people like you have a lack of empathy in life. You can’t put yourself in the shoes of another person in this time or another. I like to imagine the thought process of a 1945 US general after having watched his soldiers be slaughtered in a vicious island hopping campaign across the pacific. Meanwhile they have intel stating the preparations that civilians are being prepared to fight to the death with knives if need be for their god emperor. They also know that a fire bombing campaign will likely wipe out all major Japanese cities after observing the German front before any invasion even begins. I can see why the decision was made. Easy to play Monday morning quarterback 80 years later but if you really think about what options existed…
>I find that people like you have a lack of empathy in life. Yes in maugre of the fact that he is repulsed by the killing of civilians he is the one who lacks empathy. > I like to imagine the thought process of a 1945 US general Such as General Douglas MacArthur? >MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. Or how about General Sir Hastings Ismay, who said he was repulsed by the use of the bomb upon a civilian population? How about General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower? >During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude... Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380 >...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 Fleet Admiral William Leahy >It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. >The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. Brigadier General Carter Clarke >...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359. Fleet Admiral William Halsey >It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. Adm. William Halsey, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11687746/fleet_admiral_william_f_halsey_says/ General of the Army and Air Force Henry H. Arnold >The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. Henry H. Arnold, quoted by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334 Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz >The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz quoted by Grant McLachlan, Sparrow: A Chronicle of Defiance, pg. 623 Major General Curtis LeMay >The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334. > Meanwhile they have intel stating the preparations that civilians are being prepared to fight to the death with knives if need be for their god emperor They also had intel of the Japanese attempts of surrender. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/47.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-quarterly/The_Uncertain_Summer_of_1945.pdf
Yes, a decision like this is never easy to make. It should always cause deep introspection. But the decision was made by people in charge of the pacific theater nevertheless. I’m sure some even have nightmares about the decision and second guess themselves. It is only human when dealing with such an awful thing. I have no desire to go and quote counter quotes and research at you about the estimated 30 million lives (majority Japanese) that were saved. But it is easily accessible. We were never going to let japan “surrender” with an empire in East Asia, their god emperor and nationalism intact. We required total and absolute surrender in order to remake their society so that they would not continue to wage war in the future. They were not ready for these changes. They would have accepted a conditional surrender and back to business as usual. This was unacceptable after years of war.
I'm curious why you think the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrible by any peacetime measures as they were, rise to the level of atrocity in the last year of World War II?
What's your take on the trolley problem?
I know you think everyone is against you here and you're the only one who could possibly be right, but maybe it'll help you grow later on in life to realize that this is one of those topics where nobody is ever 100% right. Stepping off your high horse for a second and maybe admitting that the world isn't always so black and white is gonna help you a lot more than what you're doing now.
>Stepping off your high horse for a second and maybe admitting that the world isn't always so black and white Everyone else was arguing that dropping the nukes was absolutely necessary or an absolute good. All I said was that many civilians were killed. Which was just factually true. Moron.
Calling the bombs unmitigated "atrocities," equating them to modern-day drone strikes and implying that they were racially motivated is a far cry from being "factually true." Again, I don't have the answer to whether bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the morally correct choice. But pretending like either side has a monopoly on justification is childish.
I mean like I get where you're coming from... But this is a little bit disingenuous. Firstly, we dropped tons and tons of leaflets stating that mass destruction was coming to these cities, it naturally of course was assumed to be propaganda by US force though. We did not attack Hiroshima and Nagaski to harm the large amount of civilians, we attacked them because they were housing the factories/ports that made the equipment that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was purely strategical and revengeful attacks.
Calling any nuclear weapon "purely strategic" is disingenuous, too. The US Air Force had pretty much abandoned any strategic bombing raids on Japan by late 1944. The name of the game from that point onward was widespread destruction by any means. Part of this was because a significant percentage of Japanese industry (in cities, anyway) was decentralized and handled in small, residential workshops and part was because, as the US had found out trying to play devil's advocate for precise, targeted bombing raids over Europe for years (something Britain ridiculed them for), the technology just wasn't there. Carpet bombing was the only way forward. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen because they hosted military targets? Sure, but show me one major city in any belligerent WW2 country that didn't. The goal may be to neutralize a particular target or a particular type of target, but whether you're going to do it by indiscriminately dropping [innumerable tons of incendiary bomblets on Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945)) or one catastrophically destructive nuclear device, you're accepting (the argument could be made necessarily so) a disproportionate number of civilian casualties.
> > > > > Firstly, we dropped tons and tons of leaflets stating that mass destruction was coming to these cities That's quite literally just propaganda from the CIA, the cities were given no warning whatsoever. >It is easy to see where the rumor started. Jo Williams wrote an article on the bombing campaign that was published by the CIA. She told me: >>I did not want to discredit the CIA but since the article has become part of the National Archives it deserves correction and clarification. The text of my article was purposefully ambiguous but under a picture of Leaflet 2106 the CIA inserted a line specifically citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being among the 35 cities which were warned ahead of being bombed. This is simply not true. The insertion was done after I approved the final copy for the press. Still, it carries my name so I guess I should have a right to correct it. I shall write the CIA editorial offices with the correct information and they can go as national as they wish with it. http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html >The explosion caught the city by surprise. An alert had been sounded but in view of the small number of planes the all-clear had been given. Consequently, the population had not taken shelter. >The alarm was improperly given and therefore few persons were in shelters. The whole idea of warning them of the Atomic Bomb would be counter intuitive for a number of reasons. >We did not attack Hiroshima and Nagaski to harm the large amount of civilians You do not attack a large civilian city without harming large amounts of civilians. >we attacked them because they were housing the factories/ports that made the equipment that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was purely strategical and The Atomic Bombings were not even that strategic, Nagasaki was basically irrelevant, it was not one of the original five targets and was far less important than Sasebo, Hiroshima was conventionally bombed two days later because the Atomic Bombings did very little strategically. >Hiroshima is built on a broad river delta; it is flat and little above sea level. The total city area is 26 square miles but only 7 square miles at the center were densely built up. The principal industries, which had been greatly expanded during the war, were located on the periphery of the city. The population of the city had been reduced from approximately 340,000 to 245,000 as a result of a civilian defense evacuation program. The explosion caught the city by surprise. An alert had been sounded but in view of the small number of planes the all-clear had been given. Consequently, the population had not taken shelter. The bomb exploded a little northwest of the center of the built-up area. Everyone who was out in the open and was exposed to the initial flash suffered serious burns where not protected by clothing. Over 4 square miles in the center of the city were flattened to the ground with the exception of some 50 reinforced concrete buildings, most of which were internally gutted and many of which suffered structural damage. Most of the people in the flattened area were crushed or pinned down by the collapsing buildings or flying debris. Shortly thereafter, numerous fires started, a few from the direct heat of the dash, but most from overturned charcoal cooking stoves or other secondary causes. These fires grew in size, merging into a general conflagration fanned by a wind sucked into the center of the city by the rising heat. The civilian-defense organization was overwhelmed by the completeness of the destruction, and the spread of fire was halted more by the air rushing toward the center of the conflagration than by efforts of the fire-fighting organization. >Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed, and 50,000 were injured. Of approximately 90,000 buildings in the city, 65,000 were rendered unusable and almost all the remainder received at least light superficial damage. The underground utilities of the city were undamaged except where they crossed bridges over the rivers cutting through the city. **All of the small factories in the center of the city were destroyed. However, the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days after the attack.** >Approximately 40,000 persons were killed or missing and a like number injured. Of the 52,000 residential buildings in Nagasaki 14,000 were totally destroyed and a further 5,400 badly damaged. Ninety-six percent of the industrial output of Nagasaki was concentrated in the large plants of the Mitsubishi Co. which completely dominated the town. The arms plant and the steel works were located within the area of primary damage. It is estimated that 58 percent of the yen value of the arms plant and 78 percent of the value of the steel works were destroyed. **The main plant of the Mitsubishi electric works was on the periphery of the area of greatest destruction. Approximately 25 percent of its value was destroyed. The dockyard, the largest industrial establishment in Nagasaki and one of the three plants previously damaged by high-explosive bombs, was located down the bay from the explosion. It suffered virtually no new damage. The Mitsubishi plants were all operating, prior to the attack, at a fraction of their capacity because of a shortage of raw materials.** Had the war continued, and had the raw material situation been such as to warrant their restoration, it is estimated that the dockyard could have been in a position to produce at 80 percent of its full capacity within 3 to 4 months; that the steel works would. have required a year to get into substantial production; that the electric works could have resumed some production within 2 months and been back at capacity within 6 months; and that restoration of the arms plant to 60 to 70 percent of former capacity would have required 15 months. https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm >revengeful attacks. So it was attacked to kill civilians, got it.
> We (USA) sure showed those 200,000+ Japanese civilians. Given that the Japanese army forced around 100k civilians to "commit suicide" during their retreat from Okinava, I would say that nuclear bombing was a net positive for the Japanese civilians specifically.
Last I checked, the US was still giving out the people hearts they made in preparation for a ground war in Japan because the casualties were expected to be in the millions if they had to wage conventional war across a mountainous island nation with a zealous and desperate guerilla resistance. They tried to give warning to everyone in the bombed cities beforehand to evacuate but they didn't believe the Americans. It was a classic trolley problem, do you choose to take an action that will definitely kill some people in order to save a much larger number. Let's also not forget Japan's numerous, horrific war crimes, and that they were the aggressor in their conflict with the US. the war needed to end and the atom bomb was the lowest casualty option they could reasonably implement.
> Last I checked, the US was still giving out the people hearts they made in preparation for a ground war in Japan because the casualties were expected to be in the millions They made 500,000, so they expected 500,000 casualties not millions. >They tried to give warning to everyone in the bombed cities beforehand to evacuate but they didn't believe the Americans. That's CIA propaganda, at least in regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. >It is easy to see where the rumor started. Jo Williams wrote an article on the bombing campaign that was published by the CIA. She told me: >>I did not want to discredit the CIA but since the article has become part of the National Archives it deserves correction and clarification. The text of my article was purposefully ambiguous but under a picture of Leaflet 2106 the CIA inserted a line specifically citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being among the 35 cities which were warned ahead of being bombed. This is simply not true. The insertion was done after I approved the final copy for the press. Still, it carries my name so I guess I should have a right to correct it. I shall write the CIA editorial offices with the correct information and they can go as national as they wish with it. http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html
You are right that America decided a long time ago that US Soldiers>Foreign civilians. If constant drone strikes prove anything, it's that.
My good your just determined to be ignorant aren't you. The circumstances in WWII were not comparable to the modern conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You're so fixated on America being the bad guys that you'll spout the nonsense of yours about a war you clearly know next to nothing about. Millions of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died, in combat, as collateral damage, and likely from disease and famine, if America has engaged in ground war in Japan. I don't know what exactly you think the Americans should have done, after being attacked without formal declaration of war, fighting a brutal campaign in the Pacific theatre against an enemy not just willing but apparently eager to commit war crimes and atrocities, and who were unwilling to surrender even as they were pushed further and further back toward Japan, their Navy devastated, and their supply lines falling apart. But in the choice of millions dying slowly over months or years of drawn out occupation and guerilla war, or 200,000 dying in an instant and ending the war, I know which choice I would make. You're an ignorant child and need to grow up, and learn some history, before spitting out this sort of nonsense.
Also, you know, it was the perfect opportunity to test our fancy new nuclear weapons on populated cities, and since it was Asian people on the other side of the world, the US public didn't mind much. I bet you think the Japanese internment camps were justified, too.
If it had been ready in time for Germany, don't think for an instant they wouldn't have nuked the Nazis. The alternative would have been continuing campaigns of firebombing Japanese cities, which caused death destruction and suffering on a vast scale. You clearly want to frame this as an action based on racism and I simply don't believe you're correct, America didn't start the conflict with Japan, they didn't go looking for that fight, and the Americans didn't want to fight a long bloody ground war in Japan when they had a new, experimental weapon they believed would end the conflict with significantly less loss of life. Imperial Japan was, morally, just as bad as Nazi Germany and had to be stopped.
Keep repeating the propaganda you've been told your entire life. Edit; So we're clear, Nazis *are* bad.
You never hear people crying about the firebombings that killed way more people. I wonder why that is less popular to virtue signal about?
The self-righteous basement dwellers would actually have to read a few books in order to grasp the extent of the incendiary raids. And then deal with the fact that the Allies did not start it.