PDA

View Full Version : Did The USA plan To Use Atomic Bombs On Germany?


ralph124c
12-23-2003, 04:28 PM
Suppose the Germans had prolonged the war into 1946..were there any plans to drop A-Bombs on Germany? By 1945, Berlin had been bombed into rubble..so i wonder what german cities were even worth bombing?
As far as our capability to build more bombs..I understand the main bottleneck was the supply of enriched uranium..was the Oak Ridge plant capable of turning out sufficient U235 (by 1945) to build a lot of bombs?
Incidentally, when did the germans give up on their own nuclear weapons program?

Trinopus
12-23-2003, 05:13 PM
Germany surrendered in May, and the first prototype bomb wasn't tested until June...so...

No...

Obviously, *if* things had gone differently, different plans might have been made...

Trinopus

bunyip
12-23-2003, 05:45 PM
The following article suggests, perhaps surprisingly, that from May 1943, Japanese not German forces were the target for the atomic bomb.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1995/mj95/mj95.makhijani.html

KenGr
12-23-2003, 08:06 PM
Under the OP hypothesis, perhaps. However, after the Germans took great losses against the Russians it was pretty much understood that the fall of Germany was mainly a question of how long and how many losses, not whether it would happen. Also, it was believed (correctly) that if Germany was defeated in the occupied areas, great losses would not be sustained in taking Germany itself. Therefore, the bomb would not have strategic importance.

Japan was a different story in that it appeared that Japan could not be truly defeated without hand to hand combat in Japan itself.

Tripler
12-23-2003, 08:10 PM
If I may, let me ask this: Did fallout patterns have anything to do with a decision, or were they not even considered at the time?

Given that fallout over Japan would have passed over and into the Pacific, where fallout over Germany would have fallen over Europe.

Did anyone forsee this? Was it a part of the decision?

Tripler
I'm genuinely curious as well. . .

Paul in Qatar
12-23-2003, 08:35 PM
Although this idea that The Bomb was designed for use against Asians does appear from time to time, I am aware of no evidence for it.

Operating this morning with no coffee and no cites, I seem to recall the large number of European Jews working on The Bomb presumed it was destined for the Germans. The issue of fallout was certainly not addressed in any of the documents I have seen.

I would be most interested in any sort of meat to the bones of this accusation. While not trying to raise anyone hackles, the subtext of the idea seems to be one of American racism operating in the target-selection process. Certainly it might have been true, but that is not the same as saying it was in fact true.

Duckster
12-23-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Trinopus
Germany surrendered in May, and the first prototype bomb wasn't tested until June...so...


Nope.

July 16, 1945.

Lizard
12-23-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Paul in Saudi
I would be most interested in any sort of meat to the bones of this accusation. While not trying to raise anyone hackles, the subtext of the idea seems to be one of American racism operating in the target-selection process. Certainly it might have been true, but that is not the same as saying it was in fact true.

I would like to see any facts to back up this idea as well. Anyone familiar with how the U.S. fought WWII is aware we bombed the holy shit out of the civilan populations of both countries. If fewer Germans than Japanese died, it was probably because so many of the latter's houses were made out of wood and paper, and burned very easily. Certainly, equal effort was expended in both arenas to kill as many people as possible.

I think, given the above, that had it been considered necessary the bomb WOULD have been used against Germany. The Manhattan Project was started in response to a similar German program, after all.

MMI
12-23-2003, 10:02 PM
The development of the atomic bomb was originally intended as a counter to the Nazi's atomic program. By 1943 it had become clear that the German atomic bomb program was not going to be a threat. Work on the American bomb continued however. When it looked like the bomb might not be ready in time for use against Germany a whole unpleasant laundry list of radiological weapons were considered briefly for use against Germany, before sanity returned. See The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

If Germany had held out to late '45 and showed no signs of giving up the fight - no German armies surrendering, allied casualties mounting - there is little doubt that the bombs would have been dropped on whatever targets remained. Most likely, if the first two to three bombs did not persuade the Germans to throw in the towel further bombs would be used tactically to wipe out concentrations of Axis troops. This was the plan in the Pacific if the Japanese did not surrender when they did (use the next few A-bombs to clear a patch off the beach for the troops to go through).

Bryan Ekers
12-23-2003, 10:10 PM
I expect if the Normandy Invasion had been thwarted, Munich would have been reduced to a glowing puddle.

pixelfreak
12-23-2003, 10:32 PM
how much does an atomic bomb cost?
how much money does bill gates have?

adirondack_mike
12-23-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
I expect if the Normandy Invasion had been thwarted, Munich would have been reduced to a glowing puddle.

If they were lucky - otherwise they would have faced the Red army.

KenGr
12-24-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by pixelfreak
how much does an atomic bomb cost?
how much money does bill gates have?

The exact cost of a bomb is classified, I think. However, the US has spent about 5.5 trillion dollars on the nuclear program in the last 60 years. Most of that is research, delivery systems, security, etc. About 400 billion actually went into the weapons. We peaked at a bit over 32,000 warheads and bombs in the 60's so we've probably had around 40,000 total over the years. So for a nice round number, you get $10 million per bomb. However, a lot of that is development work. I would guess you could put together a nice thermonuclear device today for about $1 million if you have the infrastructure in place. Maybe less if you use cheap overseas labor.

KP
12-24-2003, 05:48 AM
Maybe less if you use cheap overseas labor.

I get that you're probably joking, but I find the economics of private nukes intriguing. Aside from the whole 60s evil world domination thing (It's just so charmingly retro, and I'm a sentimentalist), there's an extraterrestrial angle I'm not ready to discuss.

Aside from the fact that the idea of exporting this job sends chills down my spine, I wonder if the cost of overseas labor would have any substantial impact. This isn't a job for 14 year-old sweatshop labor, and though some excellent training and talent is available overseas, I doubt either skilled personnel or labor would amount to a major fraction of production costs.

Refining fissile material to weapons grade (or obtaining weapons grade material secretly) won't be cheap. I suppose "cheap overseas labor" could include existing nuclear weapons (or pre-production development) programs in other nations, but I'm not sure it would be much cheaper or evendesirable to enlist their aid: their nations would have their own agendas. Messy situation, that.

Crusoe
12-24-2003, 07:21 AM
The Guardian: How to make a dirty bomb (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769645,00.html)

(no, it's not actual instructions)

YWalker
12-24-2003, 10:16 AM
It took a lot of effort to get the uranium or plutonium to make a bomb back then. They had massive plants just to produce a small amount. The "gun" type of bomb dropped on Japan wasn't even tested because they only had enough to make 1 bomb. They were pretty sure it was going to work and it did.

The implosion design was the one tested in advance because they had more material - I think uranium. I don't know how much they had left over to make more bombs, probably not a lot.

pestie
12-24-2003, 12:03 PM
The "gun" bomb used uranium and the "implosion" bomb used plutonium.

Exapno Mapcase
12-24-2003, 12:22 PM
Back to the OP, the atomic bomb was considered a strategic weapon, not a tactical weapon. In other words, it was designed as a terror device to force the surrender of the country, not as a military instrument to take out a particular target. That's why the first uses of the bomb in Japan were on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than on Tokyo directly. (Not that Tokyo was never a target, look up Tokyo, fire bombing of.)

Remember that we were running a gigantic bluff: we only had the two bombs but were trying to make the Japanese think we had an unending supply that could be used on the rest of their cities.

There is little doubt that the bomb would have been used on Germany if circumstances were different enough that the use of the bomb might have forced an earlier surrender.

There certainly was a huge internal argument over whether to use the bombs even on the Japanese, so saying they were developed with racist intentions is simply incorrect. However, people being human, and racism against the Japanese being real, it is possible that the argument against using them on the Japanese was somewhat easier won than the argument against using them on the Germans would have been. We can never know. But in the end, I cannot conceive that they would not have been used in any instance that would have helped end the war.

Lots of conditionals there, but we're talking alternate history.

Bryan Ekers
12-24-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by adirondack_mike
If they were lucky - otherwise they would have faced the Red army.

Heck if you want to talk alternates: D-Day turns into a rout, with American, British and Canadian forces decimated and holding a bare footprint in France, unable to advance
Truman sees the Soviet army crushing westward, though slowed down a little bit because Germany doesn't have to fight the Battle of the Bulge.
Truman decides to drop a nuke on an eastern German city before the Soviets can reach it, but clearly in their path, like Frankfurt, Cottbus or Görlitz. The ultimatum is delivered to Germany: surrender or be destroyed, with an implied threat to Stalin: stop your advance or be destroyed.
Germany fights on briefly, but another city is nuked and Hitler is assassinated, successfully this time.
Another round of D-Day landings occur. This landing is relatively calm, since the troops are coming as peacekeepers, rather than liberators.
After that, I dunno. German infrastructure is relatively intact, as is the NAZI party. There wouldn't be the decades-long East/West division. The Soviets don't get to capture German rocket and atomic scientists, so it takes them longer to develop nukes of their own. By then, Britain and France have them, and they stand ready to go to town if Germany acts up again.

adirondack_mike
12-24-2003, 05:05 PM
I was not talking about alternatives but what happened to German citizens in East Prussia and Konigsburg in 1945. The Russians were extremely brutal to the German population in the conquered areas - not that I can blame them - or forgive them. The Germans were at least as brutal in conquering the territories in the first place. If the Russians had continued on I don't see how they would have stopped exacting revenge.

Whack-a-Mole
12-24-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by YWalker
The implosion design was the one tested in advance because they had more material - I think uranium. I don't know how much they had left over to make more bombs, probably not a lot.

IIRC the US was several months away from having another nuclear weapon ready. The first two, as mentioned somewhere else in this thread, were a bluff of more to come but in reality it would have been awhile till the world saw a third nuke (or fourth if you count the one used for testing).

Dave_D
12-25-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
IIRC the US was several months away from having another nuclear weapon ready. The first two, as mentioned somewhere else in this thread, were a bluff of more to come but in reality it would have been awhile till the world saw a third nuke (or fourth if you count the one used for testing).

Well this faq disagrees with you
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.5

If this thing is correct the next nuke would have been ready in a couple of weeks.(And that the US only scaled back once Japan agreed to unconditional surrender.) Also this faqs suggests that if things went according to schedule there would have been around 20 bombs produced by the end of 45.

Tripler
12-25-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
After that, I dunno. German infrastructure is relatively intact, as is the NAZI party. There wouldn't be the decades-long East/West division. The Soviets don't get to capture German rocket and atomic scientists, so it takes them longer to develop nukes of their own. By then, Britain and France have them, and they stand ready to go to town if Germany acts up again.
[/list]


Minor aside, but according to your scenario, the Allies lose the foothold in France, which would remain under Vichy control.



Other than that, I like this scenario. Why? Because under the Nazis, Germany develops the bomb. The US has the bomb, which we ship the technology to the UK. We know the Soviets will eventually develop the bomb (through the help of the Rosenbergs and Claus Fuchs), but it may take some time.

In any case, One, two three . . . FIVE nations have the bomb, and are at each others' throats and at each others' borders. Can we say HUGE "Cold War"?


Tripler
Fascinating, isn't it?
[/hijack]

Lizard
12-27-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase

There certainly was a huge internal argument over whether to use the bombs even on the Japanese, so saying they were developed with racist intentions is simply incorrect. However, people being human, and racism against the Japanese being real, it is possible that the argument against using them on the Japanese was somewhat easier won than the argument against using them on the Germans would have been.

Eh. I think even that is a long shot. it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor, after all, not Germany. The fighting in the Pacific lasted much longer, was much more wide-ranging geographically and bloodier overall than U.S. operations against Germany. People now tend to focus on the European theater more because of the historically unprecedented nature (at the time) of things like the Nazi Party and the Holocaust. But that doesn't mean Americans at the time saw the war that way. Roosevelt asked Congress to go to war only against Japan, initially, and if Germany had not subsequently declared war on the U.S., we might have been diverted away from ever fighting in Europe at all.

Koth
12-27-2003, 01:08 PM
By reading that Guardian article, I also found this in another article they did with the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.


... Then he laid out what was going on and it was up to me now to put together an organisation and train them to drop atomic weapons on both Europe and the Pacific - Tokyo.

ST: Interesting that they would have dropped it on Europe as well. We didn't know that.

PT: My edict was as clear as could be. Drop simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific because of the secrecy problem - you couldn't drop it in one part of the world without dropping it in the other.



The article is here: http://ads.guardian.co.uk/html.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&location=bottom&spacedesc=03&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=103589&country=can&rand=2144361

Koth
12-27-2003, 01:13 PM
Whoops, wrong link. Here's the right one...


The article is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,770583,00.html

Koth
12-27-2003, 01:19 PM
Also, in regards to there being a third bomb:

PT: Unknown to anybody else - I knew it, but nobody else knew - there was a third one. See, the first bomb went off and they didn't hear anything out of the Japanese for two or three days. The second bomb was dropped and again they were silent for another couple of days. Then I got a phone call from General Curtis LeMay [chief of staff of the strategic air forces in the Pacific]. He said, "You got another one of those damn things?" I said, "Yessir." He said, "Where is it?" I said, "Over in Utah." He said, "Get it out here. You and your crew are going to fly it." I said, "Yessir." I sent word back and the crew loaded it on an airplane and we headed back to bring it right on out to Trinian and when they got it to California debarkation point, the war was over.

Exapno Mapcase
12-27-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Lizard
Eh. I think even that is a long shot. it was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor, after all, not Germany. The fighting in the Pacific lasted much longer, was much more wide-ranging geographically and bloodier overall than U.S. operations against Germany. People now tend to focus on the European theater more because of the historically unprecedented nature (at the time) of things like the Nazi Party and the Holocaust. But that doesn't mean Americans at the time saw the war that way. Roosevelt asked Congress to go to war only against Japan, initially, and if Germany had not subsequently declared war on the U.S., we might have been diverted away from ever fighting in Europe at all.
Pearl Harbor or not, the use of the bomb against the Japanese was not a foregone conclusion. The arguments over whether to bomb a city and if so which city, whether to drop a demonstration bomb, or whether to continue using fire-bombing were long, loud, and intense.

And by 1944 the real fighting had concentrated in Europe. Far more of our troops, our supplies, and our focus was on Europe, for the good reason that everyone involved understood that in geopolitical terms the aftermath of the fighting in Europe would be hugely more influential on the world they knew than anything that would happen in the Far East, a relative backwater in that age.

As for the Tibbets quote, well, I'm not going to post any disparaging remarks about an 87-year-old's memory except to say that none of it is true and none of it makes the slightest amount of sense. I mean, Utah?

Perhaps it's a garbled memory of this, from Richard Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb:Groves had reported to Marshall [after Nagasaki] that he had gained four days in manufacture and expected to ship a second Fat Man plutonium core and initiator from New Mexico to Tinian [the Pacific island on which the Fat Man bombs were assembled and loaded into planes] on August 12 or 13. "Provided there are no unforeseen difficulties in the manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre," he concluded cautiously, "the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Marshall told Groves the President wanted no further atomic bombing except by his express order and Groves decided to hold up shipment, a decision in which Marshall concurred.... [On August 13] Stimson recommended proceeding to ship the nuclear materials for the third bomb to Tinian. Marshall and Groves decided to wait another day or two.

Groves' quote is taken from the "Manhattan Engineer District Records" 10 August 1945.

So, as anyone with sense will have assumed from the beginning, every single important person in the chain of command was fully involved and knowledgeable about a third core, it was being manufactured in the exact same way as the previous Fat Man and expected to be transported in exactly the same way, Tibbets and LeMay had nothing to do with it or say about it, he didn't load it on his airplane because the thing didn't exist yet, and it was never in Utah. If LeMay, who was "chief of staff of the strategic air forces in the Pacific" didn't know about the third bomb, he was out of the loop, because his boss, Strategic Air Forces Commander Carl Spaatz, did, proposing on August 10 to place "the third atomic bomb ... on Tokyo."

Could Rhodes be wrong? Dave_D's link says the same thing:The date that a third weapon could have been used against Japan was no later than August 20. The core was prepared by August 13, and Fat Man assemblies were already on Tinian Island. It would have required less than a week to ship the core and prepare a bomb for combat.

The core was never shipped. We didn't have a third bomb ready to go. The Japanese surrendered officially on August 15, although they had signaled their intentions the day before.

akrako1
12-29-2003, 02:48 PM
a bit of a hijack... the allies perpetrated the equivalent of a nuclear attack on Germany with the firebombing of Dresden. Acknowledged as a purely civilian target, the allies nevertheless turned the city into one ferocious firestorm, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. This had nearly the same psychological effect as a nuclear bomb attack, complete devistation. More people were killed in Dresden than in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

tazjet
09-14-2012, 06:45 PM
Germany surrendered in May, and the first prototype bomb wasn't tested until June...so...

No...

Obviously, *if* things had gone differently, different plans might have been made...

Trinopus

A previously classified US Navy intelligence report entitled, “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb” dated 19 August 1945, had attached to it the affidavit of a German pilot Hans Zinsser. He said he was sent aloft in October 1944 to observe a nuclear weapon test blast and watched a boiling mushroom cloud rise to 22,000 feet with plasma ion discharges inside the cloud. An Italian war correspondent Luigi Romersa sent by Mussolini to observe the test reported witnessing the blast from a sealed bunker on 12 October 1944. Romersa was still alive in 2005 when the story broke in modern times and was re-interviewed in 2005. I suspect you can find Romersa's interview on Youtube in Italian.


* “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb,” issued by COMNAVEU London on 25 January 1946 by Captain R.F. Hickey, USN. The file location in US National Archives is NARA/RG 38, Box 9-13 Entry 98c. “Top Secret Naval Attache Reports 1944-1947.”

Also there is allegedly a wreck of a six engined german aircraft in the waters 2.5 miles SW from Owl's Head Maine USA which a diver claimed online some years ago she had removed a Junkers constructor's plate from. This would equate to a Junker Ju-390.

There are also witnesses to this aircraft wreck in the sea off Owl's head about 17/18 September 1944 and then ten days later the bodies of three luftwaffe aviators being fished from the sea in Penobscott estuary.

I suspect there was an intent if not an attempt.

RickJay
09-14-2012, 07:32 PM
Minor aside, but according to your scenario, the Allies lose the foothold in France, which would remain under Vichy control.

Something more than a nitpick; Normandy was not in Vichy France.

billfish678
09-14-2012, 07:46 PM
Something folks need to consider.

All that massive work to build the bomb was to build the infrastructure to produce enriched uranium and plutonium. And a shitload of basic research and engineering to make a workable bomb and figuring out the methods to make the shit to make the bombs.

However, once that all was in place and we figured out what worked the bombs would and could keep coming if neccesary. It wasn't like we spent a fortune to build two or three of them and then we would be out of em. We spend a fortune to build an assembly line so to speak and we could IIRC pump out roughly one a month at the end of the war.

We sorta bluffed the Japanese that we had a shitload of em. But on the otherhand it wasn't like we had 2 or 3 and then we were out for good either. Even a good city nuking every other month is gonna kinda suck.

Dissonance
09-14-2012, 08:31 PM
A previously classified US Navy intelligence report entitled, “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb” dated 19 August 1945, had attached to it the affidavit of a German pilot Hans Zinsser.For zombie kicks I googled “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb”. Unsurprisingly the results were various conspiracy sites such as whale.to, abovetopsecret.com, and something entitled "'Secret Societies Threaten to Take Over America: The Rise of the 4the Reich" by J. Marrs.

* “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb,” issued by COMNAVEU London on 25 January 1946 by Captain R.F. Hickey, USN. The file location in US National Archives is NARA/RG 38, Box 9-13 Entry 98c. “Top Secret Naval Attache Reports 1944-1947.”More interesting is a google of Captain R.F. Hickey, who was an actual person. The problem is, he was the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Hancock (http://books.google.com/books?id=nICvzYNBKiUC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=Captain+R.F.+Hickey&source=bl&ots=ddaW1hNE1L&sig=NlCqE-2KYlgnvHHAz9URRVZTZNY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Captain%20R.F.%20Hickey&f=false) at the end of WW2 and later Rear Admiral commanding CARDIV5 during the Korean War (http://www.history.navy.mil/a-korea/cva33a-53.pdf) (warning, pdf file). It's rather hard to believe he took a detour in his career to write intelligence reports on interviews with Luftwaffe pilots claiming to have witnessed German atomic bomb tests.

Trinopus
09-14-2012, 08:32 PM
A previously classified US Navy intelligence report entitled, “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb” dated 19 August 1945, had attached to it the affidavit of a German pilot Hans Zinsser. He said he was sent aloft in October 1944 to observe a nuclear weapon test blast . . .

Also there is allegedly a wreck of a six engined german aircraft in the waters 2.5 miles SW from Owl's Head Maine . . .

I'm torn between "cite, please," and "bull."

TriPolar
09-14-2012, 08:34 PM
As I pointed out in another thread, many of those who worked on the Manhattan Project did so because they feared Germany would develop a bomb before we did. They felt betrayed by our actual usage of nuclear weapons after that threat no longer existed. That doesn't mean we intended to use those weapons on Germany absent a equivalent threat, but they weren't being made based on the perception of a threat from Japan.

md2000
09-15-2012, 10:39 AM
If you want some interesting insights into home-made atomic bomb making, read TOm Clancy's The Sum of All Fears. Skip the crappy movie although part of the book and the movie are about how do you respond if there is a terrorist attack with nukes?

There's a lot of techincal detail about the construction of a good home-made bomb; but ultimately, the number one impediment is how to get sufficient fissible material. It's one of the major delays in both the Manhattan project and Iran's current effort. The problems are even worse for a private group, simply due to the scale and amount of processing required, not to mention the technical complexity. It's not a job for cheap labour or zombies. (Clancy cheats by having the Israelis deliver the necessary material in the novel.) Plus, if you try to buy enough raw material like yellowcake, that will attract the attention of any CIA analysts not already busy fabricating evidence of yellowcake sales.

Saint Cad
09-15-2012, 11:01 AM
If I may, let me ask this: Did fallout patterns have anything to do with a decision, or were they not even considered at the time?

Given that fallout over Japan would have passed over and into the Pacific, where fallout over Germany would have fallen over Europe.

Did anyone forsee this? Was it a part of the decision?

Tripler
I'm genuinely curious as well. . .

My understanding is that there was no idea about fallout until after the bombs were detonated. Possibly they knew about residual radiation and maybe not but when people started dying in Japan after the original explosions, it was a real "holy crap!" moment for the scientists.

tazjet
09-16-2012, 08:41 PM
Something folks need to consider.

All that massive work to build the bomb was to build the infrastructure to produce enriched uranium and plutonium. And a shitload of basic research and engineering to make a workable bomb and figuring out the methods to make the shit to make the bombs.

However, once that all was in place and we figured out what worked the bombs would and could keep coming if neccesary. It wasn't like we spent a fortune to build two or three of them and then we would be out of em. We spend a fortune to build an assembly line so to speak and we could IIRC pump out roughly one a month at the end of the war.

We sorta bluffed the Japanese that we had a shitload of em. But on the otherhand it wasn't like we had 2 or 3 and then we were out for good either. Even a good city nuking every other month is gonna kinda suck.

Actually the Japanese were not impressed by the bombing of Hiroshima. Prof Nishina reported to the Japanese War Cabinet that USA could not have many bombs and accordingly the Japanese did not surrender because of use by USA of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was the sudden invasion of Manchuria, Korea and the Kurils which finally persuaded the Japanese to surrender, not Allied A-bombs.

tazjet
09-16-2012, 08:45 PM
If you want some interesting insights into home-made atomic bomb making, read TOm Clancy's The Sum of All Fears. Skip the crappy movie although part of the book and the movie are about how do you respond if there is a terrorist attack with nukes?

There's a lot of techincal detail about the construction of a good home-made bomb; but ultimately, the number one impediment is how to get sufficient fissible material. It's one of the major delays in both the Manhattan project and Iran's current effort. The problems are even worse for a private group, simply due to the scale and amount of processing required, not to mention the technical complexity. It's not a job for cheap labour or zombies. (Clancy cheats by having the Israelis deliver the necessary material in the novel.) Plus, if you try to buy enough raw material like yellowcake, that will attract the attention of any CIA analysts not already busy fabricating evidence of yellowcake sales.

You only need about 150 grams of Uranium or Plutonium if you use the Nazi method developed between 1942 and 1943 by Schumann and Trinks. They applied a plasma pinch external to the Uranium with explosive hollow charges causing a small thermonuclear detonation between Lithium-6 and Deuteride to spark a fissile explosion in Uranium.

Also youdo not need a huge enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor either... just type of particle accelerator called a synchrotron to transmute Thorium 232 or Uranium 238.

Several of these synchrotrons were discovered by ALSOS in Germany/Austria in 1945.

TriPolar
09-16-2012, 11:57 PM
You only need about 150 grams of Uranium or Plutonium if you use the Nazi method developed between 1942 and 1943 by Schumann and Trinks. They applied a plasma pinch external to the Uranium with explosive hollow charges causing a small thermonuclear detonation between Lithium-6 and Deuteride to spark a fissile explosion in Uranium.

Also youdo not need a huge enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor either... just type of particle accelerator called a synchrotron to transmute Thorium 232 or Uranium 238.

Several of these synchrotrons were discovered by ALSOS in Germany/Austria in 1945.

Do you have some cites for this? In the other thread your cite went to a board discussing aircraft. You'll have no problem discussing the details here, there are plenty of physicists who will understand it. This doesn't seem to be commonly known information.

Dissonance
09-17-2012, 02:35 AM
Actually the Japanese were not impressed by the bombing of Hiroshima. Prof Nishina reported to the Japanese War Cabinet that USA could not have many bombs and accordingly the Japanese did not surrender because of use by USA of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was the sudden invasion of Manchuria, Korea and the Kurils which finally persuaded the Japanese to surrender, not Allied A-bombs.Utter tripe and nonsense. The cabinet was split 3-3 on continuing the war after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the military wanting to continue the war and the civilian members wanted to quit the war. Emperor Hirohito broke the deadlock by coming out in favor of surrender. Korea and the Kuril Islands weren't even occupied until after Hirohito announced Japan's surrender and acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam declaration.

Sailboat
09-17-2012, 10:28 AM
A previously classified US Navy intelligence report entitled, “Investigations, Research, Developments and Practical Use of the German Atomic Bomb” dated 19 August 1945, had attached to it the affidavit of a German pilot Hans Zinsser. He said he was sent aloft in October 1944 to observe a nuclear weapon test blast and watched a boiling mushroom cloud rise to 22,000 feet with plasma ion discharges inside the cloud. An Italian war correspondent Luigi Romersa sent by Mussolini to observe the test reported witnessing the blast from a sealed bunker on 12 October 1944. Romersa was still alive in 2005 when the story broke in modern times and was re-interviewed in 2005. I suspect you can find Romersa's interview on Youtube in Italian.


Well, Zinsser might have said anything, because people lie. But it's definitively true that there was no Nazi atomic detonation. This is measurable today -- scientists would be able to detect the radiation products of such a blast even now, and they have been looking like hell for traces of unknown blasts for the last 60 years. So we can conclusively rule out an Axis detonation.

Germany did not achieve even a working controlled reactor.

The fact that it's so clearly and easily ruled out throws into doubt the believability and even the motive of anyone who would post such a thing.

Actually the Japanese were not impressed by the bombing of Hiroshima.

The hell they weren't. The fact that they did not instantly give up dies not mean they didn't take the weapon very seriously. Furthermore, the idea that they would be willing to endure a slow death as the US produced bombs and dropped them is ludicrous.

You only need about 150 grams of Uranium or Plutonium if you use the Nazi method developed between 1942 and 1943 by Schumann and Trinks. They applied a plasma pinch external to the Uranium with explosive hollow charges causing a small thermonuclear detonation between Lithium-6 and Deuteride to spark a fissile explosion in Uranium.

Also youdo not need a huge enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor either... just type of particle accelerator called a synchrotron to transmute Thorium 232 or Uranium 238.

Several of these synchrotrons were discovered by ALSOS in Germany/Austria in 1945.

This is a misreading of the facts.

I just finished Richard Rhodes' book Dark Sun, on the making of the hydrogen bomb (the writing of which necessarily entailed a lot of info about the making of the atomic [fission] bomb, of course, as the technologies are intertwined).

He mentions the Schumann/Trinks plasma pinch idea, which was very forward-thinking, but entirely hypothetical and not developed by the Nazis.

It's extremely misleading to refer to a Schumann Trinks atomic weapon, as you do here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15489264&postcount=13). Germany was far from having any such thing.

Alessan
09-17-2012, 12:53 PM
The idea that the Japanese were more afraid of the Russian navy - which at the time consisted of two rowboats and a surfboard - than of the largest naval armada ever assembled in history, which was currently bearing down on their homeland, is patently absurd. Yes, the Russians had the largest land forces in the world; but they didn't have a fraction of the U.S.'s ships and long-range bombers, which would actually be useful in an invasion.

Sailboat
09-17-2012, 01:20 PM
The idea that the Japanese were more afraid of the Russian navy - which at the time consisted of two rowboats and a surfboard - than of the largest naval armada ever assembled in history, which was currently bearing down on their homeland, is patently absurd. Yes, the Russians had the largest land forces in the world; but they didn't have a fraction of the U.S.'s ships and long-range bombers, which would actually be useful in an invasion.

To be fair, if someone said they feared the Soviet navy, I missed that. The implication, as far as I understand it, is that they feared the Soviet ground forces hitting them on the continent. Despite the furious island warfare that had preceded this point, far and away the largest and best Japanese ground forces were stationed in China and Manchuria. When these were hit by Soviet forces and crumpled, that meant that they would not be available to shift to Japan to defend against the Americans (or anyone else for that matter). The Soviets didn't need to get their feet wet to inflict immense military damage on Japan.

Alessan
09-17-2012, 01:26 PM
To be fair, if someone said they feared the Soviet navy, I missed that. The implication, as far as I understand it, is that they feared the Soviet ground forces hitting them on the continent. Despite the furious island warfare that had preceded this point, far and away the largest and best Japanese ground forces were stationed in China and Manchuria. When these were hit by Soviet forces and crumpled, that meant that they would not be available to shift to Japan to defend against the Americans (or anyone else for that matter). The Soviets didn't need to get their feet wet to inflict immense military damage on Japan.

But the fact is, they were unavailable since as of early 1945, if not earlier, because the Japanese effectively had no fleet to bring them home with. As far as the defense of Japan was concerned, these forces did not exist.

user_hostile
09-17-2012, 03:27 PM
YAlso youdo not need a huge enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor either... just type of particle accelerator called a synchrotron to transmute Thorium 232 or Uranium 238.

Except this would be horribly inefficient. There was some brief work done using cyclotrons to transmute fissionable material by Ernest Lawrence & Co. in Berkeley, CA, but it was dropped quickly as more promising methods offered much higher returns for the materials and energy expended (a critical factor in a war of mass production vs. attrition).

While the Americans (followed by the Soviets, a few years) committed the state to building nuclear weapons on an industrial scale, the Nazi's never moved beyond the laboratory stage. This little ditty succinctly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Alsos#Legacy) summarizes how badly the Nazi's wanted to build the bomb:

After seeing the German project at Haigerloch, Goudsmit wrote that:

It was so obvious the whole German uranium set up was on a ludicrously small scale. Here was the central group of laboratories, and all it amounted to was a little underground cave, a wing of a small textile factory, a few rooms in an old brewery. To be sure, the laboratories were well-equipped, but compared to what we were doing in the United States it was still small-time stuff. Sometimes we wondered if our government had not spent more money on our intelligence mission than the Germans had spent on their whole project.

Conclusion: Der Nazi's gott Nazi zwei show vor der efforts zwei buildt zee Atomik Boob.

XRaeth
09-18-2012, 04:05 AM
The Guardian: How to make a dirty bomb (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769645,00.html)

(no, it's not actual instructions)

I'm aware this post was made 9 years ago, but I still somehow feel that clicking this link will put me on some scary 3 letter organization's watch list.

tazjet
09-18-2012, 09:46 PM
The best guide to nuclear weapons is Carey Sublette's excellent FAQ section to this website:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Most people cant get their head around the difference between natural critical mass (the mass of fissile material at which neutron multiplication spontaneously becomes critical) and criticality.

For example with Uranium at

20% U235 enrichment requires 400kg to become critical
80% U235 enrichment requires 64 kg to become critical
93.5% U235 enrichment requires 47.5kg to become critical
93.5% U235 enriched requires 18.4kg with 10 cm thick tamper
93.5% U235 enriched requires 14.1kg with 10cm Beryllium shell
100% U235 enriched requires 1.2 kg

Therefore critical mass is not a static figure



You can induce criticality in a smaller mass with an external Plasma Pinch to raise the neutron flux at a given point to levels equivalent to or in excess of a critical mass to cause an explosion.

Critical mass is not a fixed amount. It is a variable value depending upon various factors such as:

* Isotope Purity
* Compression
* Warhead temperature
* Neutron flux levels (ie reflector)

In terms of criticality quite small amounts can be exploded with sufficient neutron flux

TokyoBayer
09-19-2012, 09:01 AM
So many misconceptions, and I don't have enough time tonight. Actually the Japanese were not impressed by the bombing of Hiroshima. Prof Nishina reported to the Japanese War Cabinet that USA could not have many bombs and accordingly the Japanese did not surrender because of use by USA of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Nope. The Japanese didn't surrender because many of the army leaders were completely fucking nuts and intended on never surrendering.

NHK, the national broadcast corporation, aired a special in which one of the intelligent officers was told several months prior to Hiroshima that they were no longer looking for evidence of the US nuclear bombs as "they" had decided that atomic bombs weren't feasible. He speculated that as Japan wasn't able to produce one itself, army leaders decided that the US couldn't.

It was the sudden invasion of Manchuria, Korea and the Kurils which finally persuaded the Japanese to surrender, not Allied A-bombs.Actually this isn't as far into left field as the rest of your posts. Historians still debate how much influence the various factors had, and as Hitohiro was involved and lots of material was destroyed, there isn't a definitive answer, but certainly there is merit in the argument that the sudden entry of the USSR was a major blow. Unfortunately I don't have enough time for this one today.

Utter tripe and nonsense. The cabinet was split 3-3 on continuing the war after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the military wanting to continue the war and the civilian members wanted to quit the war. Emperor Hirohito broke the deadlock by coming out in favor of surrender. Korea and the Kuril Islands weren't even occupied until after Hirohito announced Japan's surrender and acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam declaration.Not bad for going on memory. It was their War Counsel, so all but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were military.

The hell they weren't. The fact that they did not instantly give up dies not mean they didn't take the weapon very seriously. Furthermore, the idea that they would be willing to endure a slow death as the US produced bombs and dropped them is ludicrous.At this stage of the game, they were already damn near dead of conventional firebombing. Surrender was forgone, it was a matter if they could live with the unconditional part. They had been holding out that the USSR could negotiate something less then completely unconditional terms and when Soviets entered, that was gone. The allowance for Hitohito to remain emperor without facing war crimes tipped the balance.

Despite the furious island warfare that had preceded this point, far and away the largest and best Japanese ground forces were stationed in China and Manchuria. When these were hit by Soviet forces and crumpled, that meant that they would not be available to shift to Japan to defend against the Americans (or anyone else for that matter). The Soviets didn't need to get their feet wet to inflict immense military damage on Japan.No, what was left in China and Machuria were a shell of what they started with. The armor was gone and the troops were inexperienced. They did stand to lose all of the land, though (just showing how much in denial people can be) as well as all those men.

Total wars are a bitch.

KarlGauss
09-19-2012, 11:48 AM
a bit of a hijack... the allies perpetrated the equivalent of a nuclear attack on Germany with the firebombing of Dresden.Nope.

You are perpetuating a distortion started by one Josef Goebbels. The chief Nazi propagandist simply added a zero to the approximate figure of deaths, called it a crime, and, well, evidently it still has traction.

About 20000 to 25000 is more like it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Casualties) for fatalities in the Dresden fire bombing.

KarlGauss
09-19-2012, 11:53 AM
And, here is a non-Wiki cite (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2010/03/18/dresden-bombing-report.html) (the original source is in German and not readily available on-line in any case).

Quote:
Originally Posted by akrako1
a bit of a hijack... the allies perpetrated the equivalent of a nuclear attack on Germany with the firebombing of Dresden.

Nope.

You are perpetuating a distortion started by one Josef Goebbels. The chief Nazi propagandist simply added a zero to the approximate figure of deaths, called it a crime, and, well, evidently it still has traction.

About 20000 to 25000 is more like it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Casualties) for fatalities in the Dresden fire bombing.

Simple Linctus
09-19-2012, 12:10 PM
The allowance for Hitohito to remain emperor without facing war crimes tipped the balance.

I was under the impression that that was decided afterwards by MacArthur and the surrender was unconditional. Is that not the case?

TriPolar
09-19-2012, 12:17 PM
I was under the impression that that was decided afterwards by MacArthur and the surrender was unconditional. Is that not the case?

It doesn't seem to be clear. The wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war) indicates surrender was first declined by the emperor because he believed he would be deposed, then accepted when it was pointed out that wasn't a specific term of the demand.

On June 22, the Emperor met with his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing. There was always the threat that extremists would carry out a coup or foment other violence. On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the Emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender.

On August 9, 1945, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war, Emperor Hirohito told Kido to "quickly control the situation" because "the Soviet Union has declared war and today began hostilities against us."[33] On August 10, the cabinet drafted an "Imperial Rescript ending the War" following the Emperor's indications that the declaration did not compromise any demand which prejudiced the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.

Dissonance
09-19-2012, 12:18 PM
The allowance for Hitohito to remain emperor without facing war crimes tipped the balance.This was actually expressly rejected as an acceptable term of surrender prior to dropping the bombs. From Richard B. Franks Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-The-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461#reader_0141001461)The most often repeated condemnation of American diplomacy in the summer of 1945 is that policy makers understood that a promise to retain the Imperial institution was essential to end the war, and that had the United states communicated such a promise, the Suzuki cabinet would likely have promptly surrendered. The answer to this assertion is enshrined in black and white in the July 22 edition of the Magic Diplomatic Summary. There, American policy makers could read for themselves that Ambassador Sato had advised Foreign Minister Togo that the best terms Japan could hope to secure were unconditional surrender, modified only to the extent that the Imperial institution could be retained. Presented by his own ambassador with this offer, Togo expressly rejected it.

TokyoBayer
09-19-2012, 12:32 PM
I was under the impression that that was decided afterwards by MacArthur and the surrender was unconditional. Is that not the case?Yes and no. There were negotiations occurring prior to the surrender. There is no paper trail clearly showing the condition that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal, but as Japan had agreed to unconditional surrender as long as the Emperor remained as such, I think that it would a safe to say that the US and Japan had that, at the very minimum, as an unspoken agreement.

Hirohito remaining as emperor is part of history (http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-b-choices-truman-hirohito-and-the-atomic-bomb.html).

So it was that on 10 August, at 3:00 a.m., the Cabinet and the Supreme Council complied and voted in reluctant unanimity to accept the Potsdam offer, but with the stipulation that the Emperor remain the sovereign ruler of the country. By 7:00 a.m., the Foreign Minister had dispatched an announcement of the decision to the United States and China through Japan's Minister Shunichi Kase in Switzerland, and to Great Britain and the USSR through Minister Suemasa Okamoto in Sweden. Japanese officials tensely awaited the Allies’ response.

TokyoBayer
09-19-2012, 12:47 PM
And the US rejected Japan's demands, of course, but there are Japanese historians who argue that it was understood.

The exact role of the Emperor in the war was immediately white washed and the records have never been made public.

An argument is that the seemingly uncharacteristic forcefulness of Hirohito would have been based on something.

tazjet
09-19-2012, 09:24 PM
Since I never mentioned the Russian navy, I am being deliberately misquoted and then attacked for the contents of the misquotation.

Japan's resolve was not crushed by the American Atomic Bombs. Prof Nishina visited hiroshima which is how he came to die from cancer from radiation contracted there, but he reported to the cabinet that USA could not have many more nuclear weapons to expend against Japan.

By 1945 Manchuria and Korea were virtually all the industrial and raw material reserves which Japan had left. Nitrates for explosives and tungsten carbide for shells etc all came from Konan (Hamhuang) in Korea. Mines in northern korea and Manchuria also provided coal and iron ore. The city of Mukden was industrialised to produce munitions and aircraft including engines.

With these industrial resources in Korea and Manchuria being overrun by the Soviets the cupboard was bare so to speak.

Japan was working in Korea on it's own nuclear weapon right to the last minute, but with no viable delivery system.

The laboratory of the 8th Imperial Army laboratory in Konan was the first to be captured by a massive soviet paratroop drop on 22 August 1945. With that gone the Japanese Atomic bomb project was dealt a death blow and japan knew this.

Dissonance
09-19-2012, 10:34 PM
Since I never mentioned the Russian navy, I am being deliberately misquoted and then attacked for the contents of the misquotation.I see, so the Red Army swam to the Kuril Islands. Makes about as much sense as anything else you've said.

With these industrial resources in Korea and Manchuria being overrun by the Soviets the cupboard was bare so to speak.The cupboard was already bare as getting any of the resources from these locations to say nothing of all the rest of the remaining conquests of the Imperial Japanese Empire to Japan was becoming near impossible and had been for some time as most of their merchant fleet was at the bottom of the ocean. There were nearly no tankers left to move oil from the captured oil fields back to Japan.

Furthermore, you've ignored the fact that Korea and the Kuril Islands were not occupied until after Japan had capitulated. The loss of Korea and the Kuril Islands could hardly be a motivating factor in Japan's decision to surrender if Japan had already decided to surrender when they were occupied.

The laboratory of the 8th Imperial Army laboratory in Konan was the first to be captured by a massive soviet paratroop drop on 22 August 1945. With that gone the Japanese Atomic bomb project was dealt a death blow and japan knew this.Japan never had a meaningful nuclear program, just like Germany didn't develop a nuclear weapon your unfounded beliefs aside. And again, Japan broadcast the Imperial Rescript on surrender on August 15th; barring a time warp the activities of August 22 could have no influence on Japan's decision to surrender.

TokyoBayer
09-19-2012, 10:52 PM
Since I never mentioned the Russian navy, I am being deliberately misquoted and then attacked for the contents of the misquotation.Which was pointed out to the poster in question.

[quote]Japan's resolve was not crushed by the American Atomic Bombs. Prof Nishina visited hiroshima which is how he came to die from cancer from radiation contracted there, but he reported to the cabinet that USA could not have many more nuclear weapons to expend against Japan.[/quoted]Cite please. Specifically, I'm especially interested in why the report would go to the cabinet.

Also provide a cite showing it would be reasonable for anyone to believe him, even had this event occurred.

JoeyG
09-20-2012, 12:20 PM
If I may, let me ask this: Did fallout patterns have anything to do with a decision, or were they not even considered at the time?

Given that fallout over Japan would have passed over and into the Pacific, where fallout over Germany would have fallen over Europe.

Did anyone forsee this? Was it a part of the decision?

Tripler
I'm genuinely curious as well. . .


If fallout would have gone east, due to prevailing winds, it would have crossed Poland and eventually found it's way to Russia. Patton may have been OK with this but I doubt the US wanted to fight the millions of PO'ed Russians after they marched to Berlin and saw what the Nazis had done on the way. The Red Army didn't know about Leningrad and Auschwitz until they got there, then they took it out on the women of Berlin for a month until the Allies arrived.

Sailboat
09-20-2012, 01:11 PM
To be fair, if someone said they feared the Soviet navy, I missed that. The implication, as far as I understand it, is that they feared the Soviet ground forces hitting them on the continent. Despite the furious island warfare that had preceded this point, far and away the largest and best Japanese ground forces were stationed in China and Manchuria. When these were hit by Soviet forces and crumpled, that meant that they would not be available to shift to Japan to defend against the Americans (or anyone else for that matter). The Soviets didn't need to get their feet wet to inflict immense military damage on Japan.

But the fact is, they were unavailable since as of early 1945, if not earlier, because the Japanese effectively had no fleet to bring them home with. As far as the defense of Japan was concerned, these forces did not exist.

No, what was left in China and Machuria were a shell of what they started with. The armor was gone and the troops were inexperienced. They did stand to lose all of the land, though (just showing how much in denial people can be) as well as all those men.

Total wars are a bitch.

Looks like I haven't expressed myself clearly. What was left in China and Manchuria, shell or not, had been from the start of the war considered the finest Japanese formations, and the bulk of the Japanese Army. Since the Army was so influential in Japanese policies, it was the Army itself fearing the destruction of its own main force in continental Asia to which I was referring, not whether it could be shipped home to Japan.

The Japanese Army had been unwilling to fight the Soviets ever since Khalkin-Gol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkin_Gol).

I am not asserting that the Japanese feared the Soviet land forces more than they feared atomic (or napalm, for that matter) bombing, just addressing the flawed idea that they feared a Soviet naval invasion of Japan proper.

Japan's resolve was not crushed by the American Atomic Bombs.

The Emperor's was, or so he said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender#Broadcast_of_the_Imperial_Rescript_on_surrender).

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Japan was working in Korea on it's own nuclear weapon right to the last minute, but with no viable delivery system.

The laboratory of the 8th Imperial Army laboratory in Konan was the first to be captured by a massive soviet paratroop drop on 22 August 1945. With that gone the Japanese Atomic bomb project was dealt a death blow and japan knew this.

I would be willing to spot Japan two more years on that "project" with total confidence they would not have a workable bomb by August 6th, 1947. It's entirely possible they would never have been able to develop one, under the conditions prevailing -- a lot of electrical power being only one (absolute) requirement that Allied bombing would have denied them. As it stands, they weren't even remotely close.

Japan never had a meaningful nuclear program, just like Germany didn't develop a nuclear weapon your unfounded beliefs aside. And again, Japan broadcast the Imperial Rescript on surrender on August 15th; barring a time warp the activities of August 22 could have no influence on Japan's decision to surrender.

Yeah.

tazjet
09-21-2012, 10:21 PM
I'm torn between "cite, please," and "bull."

Abracadabra:

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/WW2/zinnseraffdvt.jpg

tazjet
09-21-2012, 10:24 PM
Looks like I haven't expressed myself clearly. What was left in China and Manchuria, shell or not, had been from the start of the war considered the finest Japanese formations, and the bulk of the Japanese Army.

Rubbish, the Kwantung Army posted a division of Indian deserters from the British Army commanded by Subhas Chandra Bose in Manchuria

tazjet
09-21-2012, 10:30 PM
I am not asserting that the Japanese feared the Soviet land forces more than they feared atomic (or napalm, for that matter) bombing, just addressing the flawed idea that they feared a Soviet naval invasion of Japan proper.



Since I never mentioned Soviet naval invasion of the Japanese home islands but you raised it in reply to me, what you are doing is raising objections to claims I never made and distorting the debate to falsely discredit me.

Japan was not swayed by the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japan was finally persuaded to give up by the loss of industry and resources in Manchuria and Korea without which further resistance was impossible.

tazjet
09-21-2012, 10:42 PM
The very earliest pre-production YB-29 bombers were painted green for the possibility of use in the European theatre of operations. They would have operated from Tibenham had there been a nuclear mission against Germany.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/WW2/YB29.jpg

One of these aircraft Hobo Queen flew to England in March 1944 and posed for cameras. It also tested several UK runways, but during this period there was also a German sighting of it overflying Austria.

For a time from July 1944 there was a threat to use a nuclear weapon against Dresden. Hitler ordered the rushed development of a high altitude fighter based on the long nosed Focke Wulf 190D called the Ta-152H.

tazjet
09-24-2012, 09:38 PM
In March 1944 a pre-production YB-29 bomber nicknamed Hobo Queen YB-41-36963 was sent from Marietta Georgia USA to RAF St Mawgens in Cornwall via Gander. She was painted ETO green and although the B-29 was a super top secret project the aircraft was deliberately paraded before the press and given maximum news coverage to alert the Germans that it was a high altitude bomber.

Hobo Queen toured several airbases in England during March 1944, including RAF Bassingbourne on 9 March, RAF Glatton Woods on 12 March 1944, RAF Horsham St Faith on 13 March. From Mid March she was stationed at RAF Bovington for trials at least one of which appears to have included an unconfirmed German sighting of her flying high over Austria.

Contrary to the myth about this visit to England the B-29 was neither range nor payload impaired flying from UK airfields over Germany.

It was only later during the Cold War when the B-29 required longer runways to reach Moscow with the Mark IV or Mark IX atomic bomb when this became an issue.

B-29 at sea level requires 1,750 yard T/O run at 140,000lb TOW (20,000lb payload).

Max range with 20,000lb bomb load = 5,374km (2,900nm);
London – Berlin direct 940km;
London – Dresden direct 965km

The RAF class “A” airfield with 2000 yard runways were sufficient for Maximum weight (140,000lb) take offs on missions against Germany. The B-29 was considered for a time in 1944 for an Atomic bombing raid against Germany.

In July 1944 the US Government warned the German legation in Lisbon that unless Hitler abandoned nuclear weapons and somehow sued for peace within 6 weeks then USA would drop the Atomic bomb on Dresden. * Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Dresden was important from two perspectives. The range to Dresden from London was almost identical therefore any Atomic attack on Dresden was a demonstration of capability to wipe out Berlin too. The other point was that the Plasma physics laboratory in Dresden played an important role in German efforts to develop fissile material for the German Atomic Bomb.

List of sources:

[1] Source: Operation “Epsilon”( 6-7 August 1945) National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, RG 77, Entry 22, Box 164 (Farm Hall Transcripts).

[2] Frank, C. (Ed.) Operation Epsilon: The Farm Hall Transcripts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993.

[3] The Farm Hall protocols or the fear of the Allies against the German atomic bomb, Rowohlt, Berlin 1993, p. 153

[4] “Germany and the Second World War” by Bernhard R. Kroener, Rolf-Dieter Müller, Hans Umbreit, Oxford University Press, 2003, page 798

[5]” Virus House,” pub 1969 by Irving, David at page 241

[6] “Oil Production 1944,” pub 1979, by Joseph Borkin

tomndebb
10-03-2012, 11:20 AM
In July 1944 the US Government warned the German legation in Lisbon that unless Hitler abandoned nuclear weapons and somehow sued for peace within 6 weeks then USA would drop the Atomic bomb on Dresden. I suspect that either something has been lost in the retelling or that this report is simply wrong.

You are claiming that in July, 1944, (twelve months prior to the Trinity test, before which point we did not even know that we could successfully set off a nuclear bomb), we were telling the Nazis that they had to take an action within six weeks, after which we would then use a weapon that we would still not know whether it would work for another ten and a half months. If that was true, the Nazis could have simply laughed at us, particularly when, in seven weeks, nothing happened.

The notion that we would hand the Nazis evidence that we were running a bluff when we could never possibly fill our hand is not credible.

Exapno Mapcase
10-03-2012, 01:46 PM
I found The Farm Hill Transcripts (http://books.google.com/books?id=pzNjntMMq-oC&pg=PA10&dq=The+Farm+Hall+Transcripts&ei=Y2psUMayNpm-zAT76YHgDA&cd=1#v=onepage&q=dresden&f=false) on Google Books.

There is no reference to Lisbon in the book. There are references to Dresden. Heisenberg is recounting a rumor he heard.

About a year ago I heard from SEGNER (?) of the Foreign Office that the Americans had threatened to drop a uranium bomb on Dresden if we didn't surrender soon. At that time I was asked whether I thought it possible, and with complete conviction, I replied "no". p79

This is very different from an ultimatum to stop making a bomb of their own.

And just one other tiny thing: it comes in a middle of a long discussion of how THEY NEVER MADE AN ATOMIC BOMB.

Allow me to cherrypick all the facts in the world, rewrite them to conform with my personal prejudices, and ignore all contrary evidence, and I'll prove anything you want.

md2000
10-03-2012, 10:01 PM
If fallout would have gone east, due to prevailing winds, it would have crossed Poland and eventually found it's way to Russia. Patton may have been OK with this but I doubt the US wanted to fight the millions of PO'ed Russians after they marched to Berlin and saw what the Nazis had done on the way. The Red Army didn't know about Leningrad and Auschwitz until they got there, then they took it out on the women of Berlin for a month until the Allies arrived.

The concept of fallout was not really understood. Even after the tests in the South Pacific after the war, I recall reading a description of the scientists complaining when the military (old school commanders) were told the sailors were at risk they ordered the sailors in the fallout zone to whisk each other down with brooms to get rid of the dust. They were thoroughly surprised to find Japanese fishermen a long way downwind dying of radiation poisoning.

Before the explosion, I don't think anyone outside of a few Manhattan Projectionists gave any thought to fallout issues.

Exapno Mapcase
10-03-2012, 10:12 PM
Before the explosion, I don't think anyone outside of a few Manhattan Projectionists gave any thought to fallout issues.
Manhattan Projectionists?

Were they the ones who screened the movies at Radio City Music Hall? I bet they spent a lot of time hoping the Rockettes would fall out... of their costumes.

Sailboat
10-09-2012, 08:59 AM
Rubbish, the Kwantung Army posted a division of Indian deserters from the British Army commanded by Subhas Chandra Bose in Manchuria

As usual, neither I nor anyone else has any idea what you mean by this. Finding one questionable division (raised for political purposes) attached to an army does not, in any particular way, reflect on the quality of the rest of said army. Your comment is like saying "there is a piece of paper in Fort Knox, therefore there is no gold in Fort Knox." I am not maintaining that the Kwantung Army could defeat the Soviets, merely that the Japanese Army (which, with the Navy, dominated Japan's internal politics) felt threatened by the possibility of its destruction.

Since I never mentioned Soviet naval invasion of the Japanese home islands but you raised it in reply to me, what you are doing is raising objections to claims I never made and distorting the debate to falsely discredit me.

It may not be possible to discredit you, falsely or otherwise, to any greater degree than your own posting does.

As just one example, my quote which you cherry-pick here is part of a longer post in which I directly quote Alessan commenting on an invasion and the passage you cite follows, and replies to, Alessan's assertion. It chould be crystal-clear I am responding to Alessan and not you; your identity, "tazjet," does not even appear in the post before I make that reply.

It ain't always about you.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.