# FDR and the Atomic Bomb. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073 "2010-03-11T03:24:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/61 "2010-03-12T12:01:45Z")
Killing with guns isn’t ‘better’ than killing with gas/radiation etc - instead, it’s just easier on the conscience of the people sitting back home. We’re used to seeing gun battles on TV all the time. There’s no fire, no smoke, no damage to the surrounding area. The people that die aren’t burn victims with skin falling off their bodies. Most of the time, people that are shot dead just look…dead. Headshots can be nasty, but from what I’ve heard people mostly die from multiple gun shot wounds (massive internal organ failure and/or bleeding to death). My tangent thought on this has always been, if people killed by guns looked as…disturbing… as burn victims or radiation burn victims, you’d have a much bigger outcry over guns in general… ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/62 "2010-03-12T12:26:12Z")
One other aspect is that le May was running out of targets for his bombers. Sure they could fly around and drop bombs at random but they were also losing their own aircraft (not important) but personnel. One bomb could take the place of the many. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/63 "2010-03-12T13:50:02Z")
A bit of a hijack, but I read once that Truman had been totally in the dark about the A-bomb project. He knew so little, that when Roosevelt died, he was summoned to an emergency meeting…where he learned (for the first time) about the Manahattan Project. That is why Truman deserves a lot of credit-he was quick to grasp the enormous responsibility thrust on him, and made the right decision. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/64 "2010-03-12T14:43:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The second factor was the Soviets - they were playing the Japanese. Stalin wanted to get in on the Asian war at its end so he could claim a piece of the prizes that would be awarded after Japan’s defeat. But he knew he would need some time to get his army moved and ready for a new offensive. He was worried that Japan might surrender before he got a chance to declare war on them. So the Soviets opened a covert diplomatic channel to the Japanese. They told them that the United States might be willing the negotiate a compromise peace. This, of course, was exactly what the Japanese leaders wanted to hear so they convinced themselves it was true. They believed they had a chance of negotiating an armistice which would allow them to surrender some of their captured territories in exchange for leaving them with safe in Japan itself. > > So proposals were being forwarded to the Soviet Union which the Japanese believed were being sent on to the United States and given serious consideration. The Japanese thought they were involved in real negotiations. Which is why the Soviet declaration of war on August 8 came as such a shock. The Japanese suddenly realized that they had just been strung along and there was no prospect of a negotiated surrender. This point is worth expanding on, and was discussed in detail in the other thread, as it was brought up by the side opposing the dropping of the bombs as evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender. The negotiations were a complete joke - Togo instructed Saito (the Japanese ambassador to the USSR) that the Imperial government wasn’t seeking Soviet mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender. When Molotov finally talked to Saito it was to inform him of the Soviet declaration of war. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, despite my repeated instructions to Ambassador Satö in Moscow to press the U.S.S.R. to act quickly on our request for mediation, he did not succeed in obtaining access to any of the Russian officials save Vice-Commissar Lozovsky, until finally he reported that Molotov was back in Moscow from Potsdam on 5 August, and would receive him at 5:00 P.M. (11:00 P.M., Japan time) on the 8th. That interview proved, however–as we learned only after the war–to have no relation to our request, but to be for the quite different purpose of notifying the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R.'s commencement of war against Japan. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm) > [@](#): > > The third factor was the belief in Japanese exceptionalism. Many nations (certainly including the United States) have a belief in their exceptionalism - the idea that they are different from other countries and the rules that apply to other countries don’t apply to them. This was certainly the case in Japan. It was an accepted part of Japanese culture that Japan had never been defeated in a war. Even when things looked most hopeless, some last minute miracle had always saved Japan from defeat. So the Japanese had come to believe that they could not be defeated - as long as they maintained faith and kept fighting, something would save them in the end. > > The atomic bomb shattered this belief. It showed that fate or the gods or the forces of history was not on Japan’s side - it was America not Japan that had been given the miraculous new weapon. The Japanese were forced to the awareness that they could lose a war - and in fact had lost the war they were in. Even the Imperial government knew that victory was impossible by this point - their overall plan was to try and hold out for peace on their terms (also their goal in negotiating with the Soviets), by inflicting horrific casualties on the Americans and breaking US resolve. Of course, the atomic bomb completely undermined this; continuing to resist would be tantamount to national suicide. There was no way to defend against it, one plane that could deliver the same damage as an entire squadron. No way to break the resolve of the enemy. > [@](#): > > The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. If we continue to fight this war, this weapon will destroy the Japanese nation and bring about the total extinction of the human race. > > As a result, I have no way to save the millions of Japanese citizens other than to surrender. From the Emperor’s speech accepting the terms of Potsdam. > **[Hirohito surrender broadcast | Content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyokuon-h%C5%8Ds%C5%8D#Content)** > > Though the word "surrender" (Japanese: 降伏, romanized: kōfuku) was not explicitly used, Emperor Hirohito instructed Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki and his cabinet to communicate to the Allies that the "Empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration", which amounted to an acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. He justified Japan's decision to go to war as an act of "self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia" and referenced the setbacks and defeats of recent years, saying "the ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/65 "2010-03-12T15:56:27Z")
And if anyone needed any evidence that Japan’s government wasn’t that keen on surrendering even after the bombs: note that [Hirohito’s address](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyokuon-h%C5%8Ds%C5%8D#Content) to the nation itself admonishes government leaders to cease efforts at stopping the surrender (bolding mine). > [@](#): > > I ask you to remain calm and to refrain from **fighting with your fellow citizens** , so that we do not lose the confidence of the world. That this was needed is evidenced by the events omf August 12-15: a significant [attempt at a coup d’etat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempted_military_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat_.28August_12.E2.80.9315.29)aimed primarily at preventing the Emperor from surrendering. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/66 "2010-03-12T16:08:48Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > A bit of a hijack, but I read once that Truman had been totally in the dark about the A-bomb project. He knew so little, that when Roosevelt died, he was summoned to an emergency meeting..where he learned (for the first time) about the Manahattan Project. > That is why Truman deserves a lot of credit-he was quick to grasp the enormous responsibility thrust on him, and made the right decision. It is true that Truman knew nothing of the Atomic Bomb till being sworn in as president (of which he was brought up to speed very soon after becoming president). IIRC Truman was waffling on whether or not to drop the bomb. As I recall one of his advisers opined that if the American public learned he had this weapon and refused to use it and squandered American lives in an invasion of Japan he’d be impeached at the least and possibly worse. Supposedly that cinched it for Truman and he went ahead with the bombings. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/67 "2010-03-12T16:21:58Z")
I’ve done a bit of reading of both some English and Japanese sites regarding the war and Japan’s ultimate surrender. The conclusion I draw is that while the central government in Tokyo was indeed aware of the ‘widespread damage’ in Hiroshima, there were parts of the Japanese government that still believed that the bomb was too difficult and thus unlikely to be the cause of destruction in Hiroshima. And in any case, Japan believed that even if the US had built a bomb, it could not have built more than a couple. This brings up an angle I hadn’t come across before: The US apparently wanted to drop the second bomb right away, so that Japan would think they had an [unlimited supply](http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm) (scroll about half-way down): > [@](#): > > During the party following the successful Hiroshima drop, he recalled that Paul Tibbets took him aside and told him that he was to command the second atomic mission, with Kokura as the primary and Nagasaki as the secondary target. Timing was important, Tibbets said: “It was vital that [the Japanese] believed we had an unlimited supply of atomic bombs and that we would continue to use them. Of course, the truth was that we only had one more bomb on Tinian. Delivery of the third bomb was several weeks away.” I hadn’t heard that before. Another fascinating story concerns one Ltd. Marcus McDilda - check out his [story here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Imperial_intervention.2C_Allied_response.2C_and_Japanese_reply). Anyway - my reading suggests Japan knew Hiroshima had been destroyed, but took two days before even meeting to discuss surrender - and there remained a faction in Japan that did not believe the US had the bomb. Given the above, plus the Ltd Marcus McDilda story, the clear reluctance on the part of Japan’s military to surrender even after Nagasaki…it seems pretty clear that the second bomb was probably needed after all. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/68 "2010-03-12T16:42:17Z")
> [@](#): > > IIRC Truman was waffling on whether or not to drop the bomb. As I recall one of his advisers opined that if the American public learned he had this weapon and refused to use it and squandered American lives in an invasion of Japan he’d be impeached at the least and possibly worse. Truman himself said otherwise. He said that he saw the decision as clear; the United States was at war with Japan and the atom bomb was a useful weapon - there was no debate over using it. This would seem to have been in character for Truman, who was not known as a “waffler”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/69 "2010-03-12T17:09:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Ever read about the fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo? People died from having their lungs burned out. Wars are a terrible thing and a lot of people die horrible deaths in them. I don’t see the logic of saying it’s okay to kill people as long as it’s done in an acceptable manner. Why is killing people with bullets or bombs or fire or starvation any better than killing them with poison gas or radiation? Because we’ve been killing people that way for years? And also because one plane did it. Because people trusted the Air Force to keep a fleet of bombers away, but how to protect against just one? You could hide from most bombs, but not from the A-bomb. I grew up in the '50s, and TV and the movies were full of after the bomb stories - even more when missiles got developed. It was maybe the first time a concept safely in those junky science fiction magazines wound up in the real world. I think it also represented one fo the first cases where that crazy physics done by that nice Dr. Einstein could kill you. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/70 "2010-03-12T17:21:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Truman himself said otherwise. He said that he saw the decision as clear; the United States was at war with Japan and the atom bomb was a useful weapon - there was no debate over using it. This would seem to have been in character for Truman, who was not known as a “waffler”. Not sure how reliable this cite is but shows if nothing else this notion is out there. I’ll have to leave it to better read historians on this subject than I to sort it out (although it is not surprising Truman would write well of himself and his decisions): > [@](#): > > Not only was Truman torn making the decision to use the atomic bomb but according to his papers, was actually considering the other options when Secretary Byrnes suggested that he also consider what he would say during his impeachment for letting millions die when he could have stopped the war. What would he say to the mothers of young men who died when he could have prevented it? > > SOURCE: [A-Bomb — A-Bomb! Destroyer of Worlds! The site of the 1st A-bomb.](http://www.kilroywashere.org/004-Pages/Trinity/Trinity.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/71 "2010-03-12T18:15:00Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Actually it would have left one a hell of a lot worse of militarily. We had three bombs (I always thought it was two until reading this thread). Dropping one as a demo would have wasted 33% of the available weapons, at a time when we did not know how many Japanese cities would need to be razed to bring about surrender. But…the Japanese didn’t surrender because Nagasaki was the last city they could tolerate losing. It’s not like we firebombed 60 cities and nuked two and they said “Sixty-TWO…that’s our limit!” They surrendered for two (atomic-bomb-related) reasons (I’ll skip the part about Russia, which isn’t germane): 1. We had an _atomic bomb_ capable of destroying an entire city and, possibly: 1. We demonstrated that we had _more than one_ of the things. So for all they knew, we had a thousand. Let’s say we test-drop one on an evacuated city or similar structure with Japanese observers watching. Kablooie! Pretty impressive…but let’s say you’re right and the demo doesn’t persuade them; they’re in denial. So we drop the second one on a real city, just like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Kablooie! It’s gone, baby! We’ve not only demonstrated the actual death count the bomb can bring, but convincingly shown we have _more than one_ of the things. So for all they know, we have a thousand. Now we’re out of bombs – exactly like after the Nagasaki bombing. Now we’ve shown we have multiple – exactly like after the Nagasaki bombing. Now we’ve shown they will kill tons of folks – exactly like after either bombing. So we’re actually no worse off militarily _at all_, except either Hiroshima or Nagasaki still exists. They’d been deliberately spared up to that point anyway to serve as test cities for the bombs, so they weren’t crucial to Japan’s war effort; and it’s one evening’s work for Curtis LeMay and company to firebomb them into oblivion anyway – and ol’ Curtis is running out of sizable targets, and would _already_ have pasted Hiroshima and Nagasaki conventionally if he hadn’t been prevented by the target list restrictions which were solely atomic-bomb related. So we’d be set back one evening’s work and some napalm. And of course there’s a _chance_ that the implied humanity in offering a demonstration bomb would positively affect Japanese willingness to regard us as less monstrous, and a better prospect to surrender to. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/72 "2010-03-12T18:23:31Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > And of course there’s a _chance_ that the implied humanity in offering a demonstration bomb would positively affect Japanese willingness to regard us as less monstrous, and a better prospect to surrender to. Pretty sure we dropped leaflets on those cities telling everyone to get our of Dodge or be destroyed (or something to that effect). They ignored it. Now, they certainly did not expect a nuke but as noted firebombing could achieve a similar result and they KNEW we could and would do that. They stayed anyway. ETA: I think one issue with a demonstration was if the demonstration did not work. Dropping one on a city and not working they probably would not realize what happened. But a note to “watch us erase that uninhabited island” and then nothing happening would have been bad. Remember these things were dicey, bleeding edge tech for the time and one design had not been tested at all. There was a real chance they would be duds. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/73 "2010-03-12T18:28:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Pretty sure we dropped leaflets on those cities telling everyone to get our of Dodge or be destroyed (or something to that effect). They ignored it. Actually, we dropped leaflets on multiple cities **after** bombing Hiroshima, which were of the “you Japanese had better surrender soon” variety, not the “you Nagasakians are scheduled for day after tomorrow, better evacuate” variety. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/74 "2010-03-12T18:29:54Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > So we’re actually no worse off militarily _at all_, except either Hiroshima or Nagasaki still exists. They’d been deliberately spared up to that point anyway to serve as test cities for the bombs, so they weren’t crucial to Japan’s war effort; and it’s one evening’s work for Curtis LeMay and company to firebomb them into oblivion anyway – and ol’ Curtis is running out of sizable targets, and would _already_ have pasted Hiroshima and Nagasaki conventionally if he hadn’t been prevented by the target list restrictions which were solely atomic-bomb related. So we’d be set back one evening’s work and some napalm. Well, if you tell the Japanese - “We have this marvellous weapon, would you mind evacuating your city/deserted island and not attacking our lone bomber while we show you what it can do?” What would happen? As the list in the prior posts show, the advantage was that hundreds of bombers were still flying sorties before and after both attacks. The Japanese simply couldn’t take out every bomber in the sky that may or may not be nuclear. They had gotten used to ignoring single bombers on photo-reconnisance missions, but I’m sure that would change if they knew what to look for. Besides, what if it fizzled during the demo? The main point here is that the atom bomb was just another weapon at the time. It didn’t become the embodiment of pure evil until after the long term total effects were know, and as the blast power went from the 7 to 20 kiloton range up to megaton range. People began to realize by then that it was truly opening the door to a lower level of hell. In 1945, it was just a bigger hammer for flattening cities as had been done for 6 years. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/75 "2010-03-12T18:34:16Z")
The only question I have with the ‘have them come watch the demo’ scenario is, my understanding that there was a larger-than-zero chance that the bomb wouldn’t work. Inviting the Japanese to come watch a demo that fails miserably (er, bombs, as it were) would only strengthen the resolve of Japan’s military to resist and fight on. They’d take it as a sign of Japan’s specialness, like the kamikaze wind that drove of the Mongol invadors centuries prior. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/76 "2010-03-12T18:50:51Z")
Remember that atomic weapons didn’t horrify people (well, in America at any rate) even _after_ Hiroshima and Nagasaki. _Popular Science_ and publications of its ilk were awash with stories about ground troops carrying tactical nuclear rocket launchers and mortars, battleships firing nuclear shells, and so on, right through the 1950s. [QUOTE=WPA-Guy] However, the documentary made a point that Truman did not know the reservations that the bomb inventors had in the use of it. Would that have changed his mind? Who knows. But he wouldn’t let MacArthur use the bomb in Korea. [/QUOTE] That’s a bit of a stretch. There was plenty of military brass around Oppenheimer during the Trinity test, when he quoted the Bhagavad Gita (“I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”), and several of them reported directly to Truman afterward. In any event, Korea was a totally different war; South Koreans would obviously not have taken kindly to the US wiping out entire cities in the North, regardless of how they felt about the Communists. ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/77 "2010-03-12T20:47:20Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > The only question I have with the ‘have them come watch the demo’ scenario is, my understanding that there was a larger-than-zero chance that the bomb wouldn’t work. Inviting the Japanese to come watch a demo that fails miserably (er, bombs, as it were) would only strengthen the resolve of Japan’s military to resist and fight on. They’d take it as a sign of Japan’s specialness, like the kamikaze wind that drove of the Mongol invadors centuries prior. To clarify something the first bomb they dropped on Hiroshima (little boy) was the gun type U-235 bomb. Basically the scientists were so sure that design would work they didn’t bother to do a test explosion. The second one (Fatman) was considered the iffy one. It used an implosion of plutonium to work. A version of that was tested in the Trinity test in NM. So to add to what you say what would the Japanese have thought if the demo bomb went off fine (since it was almost certain to work) and the second bomb that was actually going to be used against a Japanese city fizzled because of some timing issue or something. (Let alone hoping that no Japanese military leader would think “Why are they demoing something in a way I can’t judge battle damage and simultaneously wasting a weapon for no real reason?”) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/78 "2010-03-12T20:59:26Z")
> [@notsoheavyd3](#): > > To clarify something the first bomb they dropped on Hiroshima (little boy) was the gun type U-235 bomb. Basically the scientists were so sure that design would work they didn’t bother to do a test explosion. They thought the chance of a dud was real: > [@](#): > > In early May 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, with the approval of President Harry S. Truman, formed an Interim Committee of top officials charged with recommending the proper use of atomic weapons in wartime and developing a position for the United States on postwar atomic policy. > > \ > > At the May 31 meeting, Lawrence suggested that a demonstration of the atomic bomb might possibly convince the Japanese to surrender. This was rejected, however, out of fear that the bomb might be a dud, that the Japanese might put American prisoners of war in the area, or that they might manage to shoot down the plane. The shock value of the new weapon could also be lost. These reasons and others convinced the group that the bomb should be dropped without warning on a “dual target” – a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes. On June 6, Stimson informed President Truman (right) that the Interim Committee recommended keeping the atomic bomb a secret until Japan had been bombed. The attack should take place as soon as possible and without warning. > > SOURCE: [http://www.cfo.doe.gov/Me70/manhattan/debate.htm](http://www.cfo.doe.gov/Me70/manhattan/debate.htm) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/79 "2010-03-12T21:19:04Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > B > > Let’s say we test-drop one on an evacuated city or similar structure with Japanese observers watching. Kablooie! Pretty impressive…but let’s say you’re right and the demo doesn’t persuade them; they’re in denial. > > So we drop the second one on a real city, just like Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Kablooie! It’s gone, baby! > > We’ve not only demonstrated the actual death count the bomb can bring, but convincingly shown we have _more than one_ of the things. So for all they know, we have a thousand. > > Now we’re out of bombs – exactly like after the Nagasaki bombing. > Now we’ve shown we have multiple – exactly like after the Nagasaki bombing. > Now we’ve shown they will kill tons of folks – exactly like after either bombing. > > So we’re actually no worse off militarily _at all_, except either Hiroshima or Nagasaki still exists. T > > And of course there’s a _chance_ that the implied humanity in offering a demonstration bomb would positively affect Japanese willingness to regard us as less monstrous, and a better prospect to surrender to. _Why_ should we have done this? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073/80 "2010-03-12T22:26:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Remember these things were dicey, bleeding edge tech for the time and one design had not been tested at all. There was a real chance they would be duds. Nitpick: The plutonium bomb (Fat Man, the Nagasaki bomb) was dicey, bleeding-edge tech. That’s why an identical device was tested at Trinity - no one was sure the implosion mechanism would work. But the Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy - that was a gun-type uranium fission weapon. Take a chunk of uranium, lob it at another chunk of uranium really fast, and it’ll fission. No one doubted it would work. I mean, it _might_ have failed, for the same reasons any conventional munition of that era might fail - sometimes conventional explosives are dudes. But if the triggering charge fired, Little Boy was going to make a pretty darned big explosion for certain. And it could have been used for a demonstration with a high degree of confidence. ETA: Sorry, should have read thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fdr-and-the-atomic-bomb/532073.md?page=5)