# I'm a Baby of the Atomic Bomb — and So Are You **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741 "2015-11-05T18:33:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/61 "2015-11-11T01:53:36Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The US was hurrying to complete the bomb and to end the war. There certainly were discussions if the Soviet entry was really necessary, but I don’t recall any specific discussions concerning speeding up the bomb specifically for this. If you have any cites, that would be great. I’ve read it in several books, but most were library books, and decades ago, so I can’t cite them. I do have on hand _American Prometheus_, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Oppenheimer, by Bird and Sherwin. They say: “But Truman – and his closest adviser, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes – had decided that the advent of the atomic bomb gave them yet another option. As Byrnes later explained, ‘. . . it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we should have an end to the war before the Russians came in.’” > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > This is incorrect. The Soviets would not, and could not have been involved in an invasion. They lacked the amphibious fleet to land troops. That will come as a mild surprise to the 100,000 Soviet army troops who invaded [Sakhalin Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin#Second_World_War) on Aug 11, 1945. That aside, they didn’t need landing craft to help defeat Japan. They could (and did) attack in Manchuria, which still contained some 700,000 Japanese troops. And they could have loaned troops to the US landing efforts, or supplied troops after the beachheads had been established. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/62 "2015-11-11T16:06:57Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > That idea was in fact seriously considered and was rejected- MacArthur was particularly opposed to it - because it was deemed to be inhumane and uncivilized. Starving millions of people to death was, amazingly enough, something Allied leadership decided it did not want to do if it could be avoided. Cite? There were a number of discussions about how the war would be ended, and someone may have suggested at sometime waiting for the blockage to take effect, but this consideration was never made at the highest levels, let alone be rejected because of the inhumanity. The Joint Chiefs had made plans for the invasion of Japan, and were going full steam ahead. There was no reason to allow the Japanese to continue to build up further defenses. If you read my cite above on the strength of the IJA in Kyushu, a key factor was the Japanese were busy increasing their preparations of defense of the homelands, a fact well-known to the US because of the MAGIC intercepts of their secret transmissions. It’s true that MacArthur would have been opposed to any delay in the invasion of Kyushu, but not because of any humanitarian reasons. He wanted the glory of it all. Seriously, who would have been the person to say that burning up 100,000 men, women, children and babies is fine, but we can’t starve them? This story doesn’t make sense. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > I’ve read it in several books, but most were library books, and decades ago, so I can’t cite them. I do have on hand _American Prometheus_, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Oppenheimer, by Bird and Sherwin. They say: > “But Truman – and his closest adviser, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes – had decided that the advent of the atomic bomb gave them yet another option. As Byrnes later explained, ‘. . . it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we should have an end to the war before the Russians came in.’” As I stated earlier, I don’t see any evidence that the atomic bomb project was specifically speeded up for this purpose. That you have a biography of Oppenheimer and that’s the best quote is pretty damning evidence that it didn’t happen. The US had been “moving heaven and earth” to develop the bomb and use it to end the war. Period. How was it that they would have been able to move “more heaven and earth” to finish it faster than they would have otherwise? All because of a deadline that no one knew when it would occur? More below when I reply to the suggestion of using Soviet troops in Japan. > [@](#): > > That will come as a mild surprise to the 100,000 Soviet army troops who invaded [Sakhalin Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin#Second_World_War) on Aug 11, 1945. Actually, a “mild surprise” would have been an understatement to the Red Army troops if they were told they were to use landing craft in their invasion of the Japanese held southern Sakhalin. They would have shot the generals who would have suggested lugging amphibious boats onto land when they had tanks instead. It’s true that there was one landing. > [@](#): > > It was not until the 113th Rifle Brigade and the 365th Independent Naval Infantry Rifle Battalion from Sovetskaya Gavan landed on Tōro, a seashore village of western Karafuto on August 16 that the Soviets broke the Japanese defense line. I guess the other reason for the Soviet troops to be surprised would be that none of them would have expected one brigade and a battalion to be 100,000 strong. If you didn’t have a chance to read your cite, you can refresh your memory. While Japan had taken the entire island twice, they had returned the northern section both times, the second time in 1925. > [@](#): > > That aside, they didn’t need landing craft to help defeat Japan. They could (and did) attack in Manchuria, which still contained some 700,000 Japanese troops. And they could have loaned troops to the US landing efforts, or supplied troops after the beachheads had been established. Several points. First, the Soviet entry into the war in and of itself was a major contribution to the decision to surrender, as I posted earlier. There is a lively debate between scholars as to which of the two events, this or the atomic bombs, which was more decisive. As they both happened within a space of a couple of days, it’s impossible to reach a conclusive decision, but there is not doubt that the Soviets played an important role That said, my point was not that the Soviets didn’t help, but your statement that > [@you](#): > > If we hadn’t dropped the bomb, the Soviets would have been part of the invasion of Japan, thereby speeding the defeat of Japan, necessitating fewer Americans in the invasion, and diverting some of the casualties away from us. which isn’t supported by history. The US would have needed to invade the Kanto plains. The initial plan was to land first in Kyushu, Operation Olympic, in order to build airports to allow land-based fighter planes to help support the Kanto attack, Operation Coronet. The Japanese were anticipating the invasion of Kyushu and were heavily fortifying it for a “decisive battle” in which they could inflict such losses on the US that we would be easier on them for the surrender terms. The war planning councils were in the middle of reevaluating their options because of the anticipated heavy casualties in Operation Olympic. Gen. MacArthur wanted to continue with the plans, probably because he was MacArthur. Admiral King was especially keen on finding alternative, and there was a meeting scheduled to discuss this when the war ended. It should be noted that the Soviets had some landing craft, which the US had supplied, but not enough to land many troops, with “many” being more than a couple of divisions, at most. They would have had many problems, including the lack of experience and not having the battleships to provide heavy firepower for a contested landing on a large scale. Unless the Soviets actually were a part of the either or both of the Kyushu or Kanto operations, any possible independent landing would not have had an affect on US casualties, the point we are discussing. (There is a debate if the Soviets could have invaded Hokkaido, but that was defended by a different army, and would not have been a decisive factor.) As to your suggestion that the Soviets could have “loaned troops to the US landing efforts, or supplied troops after the beachheads had been established” you really need to respond first to the poster **TonySinclair** who is arguing that the US moved heaven and earth in order to keep the Russians out of Japan. By the time these events were taking place, Stalin broken his promises regarding the future of East Europe and proved that he could not be trusted. The seeds of the Cold War were already planted, and the US and Britain were especially interested in keeping them out of Japan. No. This would not have happened. Stalin would not have given hundreds of thousands of men with no strings and the US would not have accepted his conditions. The US had no plans on involving the Soviets in these operations. This is well documented and any assertion to the contrary lacks a basis in reality. ---
**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:** [November 11, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/63 "2015-11-11T17:38:13Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > They had 10,000 planes slated for kamikaze attacks with instructions to attack troop and equipment transport. Japan only built ~70,000 aircraft of all types in WWII, about half of which were unsuitable for kamikaze attacks (heavy bombers, transports, gliders, etc.) They built fewer than 9,000 aircraft in total in 1945. It’s just not plausible that they had 10,000 aircraft in reserve for kamikaze attacks in 1945, even if they planned to adapt every small aircraft variant they had for them. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/64 "2015-11-11T22:27:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Japan only built ~70,000 aircraft of all types in WWII, about half of which were unsuitable for kamikaze attacks (heavy bombers, transports, gliders, etc.) They built fewer than 9,000 aircraft in total in 1945. It’s just not plausible that they had 10,000 aircraft in reserve for kamikaze attacks in 1945, even if they planned to adapt every small aircraft variant they had for them. I know, it sounds wrong but [it was the case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Kamikaze). > [@](#): > > Admiral Matome Ugaki was recalled to Japan in February 1945 and given command of the Fifth Air Fleet on Kyūshū. The Fifth Air Fleet was assigned the task of kamikaze attacks against ships involved in the invasion of Okinawa, Operation Ten-Go, and began training pilots and assembling aircraft for the defense of Kyūshū where the Allies were likely to invade next. > > The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the mission. Their army and navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July (and would have had somewhat more by October) and were planning to use almost all that could reach the invasion fleets. Ugaki also oversaw the building of hundreds of small suicide boats to attack any Allied ships that came near the shores of Kyūshū. > > Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Kyūshū, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that would reduce the Allies’ radar advantage), they hoped to raise that to one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks within a period of hours. The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more than 400 ships; since they were training the pilots to target transports rather than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be disproportionately greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes could destroy a third to half of the invasion force before its landings. Because they were making kamikaze planes, they were able to use what would have otherwise been obsolete planes. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/65 "2015-11-12T01:21:07Z")
Other posts have addressed some of your statements, so I’ll limit myself to one nitpick: > [@Chihuahua](#): > > This was a war that had engulfed the world for years (in the case of SE Asia, decades) and killed somewhere around 20 million people. What sort of rose-colored World War II happened in your universe? According to Mathew White, self-styled “atrocitologist” (statistician interested in accuractely assessing large-scale death), [WWII killed **65 million people**](http://atrocitology.com/ax01.html). Not 20. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/66 "2015-11-12T01:30:55Z")
> [@Chihuahua](#): > > This was a war that had engulfed the world for years (in the case of SE Asia, decades) and killed somewhere around 20 million people. Another nitpick: If you’re referring to Korea, that’s East Asia. Nothing with the Japanese was happening down here in Southeast Asia until the actual outbreak of the war. ---
**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:** [November 12, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/67 "2015-11-12T01:56:51Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > Another nitpick: If you’re referring to Korea, that’s East Asia. Nothing with the Japanese was happening down here in Southeast Asia until the actual outbreak of the war. Apologies for that sounding more confrontational than intended…it seemed light-hearted when i thought of it. Suffice to say WWII=bad. Matthew White refers to it as “the Hemoclysm” (more or less, the cataclysmic shedding of blood). ---
**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:** [November 12, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741/68 "2015-11-12T02:27:34Z")
Meant to quote myself, not **SiamSam**. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-a-baby-of-the-atomic-bomb-and-so-are-you/736741.md?page=3)