New article claims "The Atomic Bombings of Japan Were Based on Lies"

[LSLGuy]

In general I agree w the thrust of all you’ve said.

But at least Stalin, if not everyone else at Potsdam, knew that the Potsdam alliance would end the instant the war ended. Under the right circumstances I could easily believe old Joe double-crossing the USA & UK after we’d already done what Joe really wanted, which was help him finish off Hitler.

Best not to give him that opportunity.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I have no doubt Stalin would have ignored any agreements if he thought it was in his interest to do so. I cannot see how ignoring Potsdam and giving Japan a negotiated surrender would have ever have been in his interests. Instead, he did what we would expect…he invaded (and Russia still has what they got from Japan even today).

[Kent_Clark]

@Whack-a-Mole

Instead, he did what we would expect…he invaded

Stalin didn’t just do what the U.S. would expect, he did what we wanted. At Yalta the Soviet Union agreed to declare war no later than three months after the War ended in Europe. Stalin, showing remarkable punctuality not only declared war on August 9 (Japanese time) but one hour later threw 1.5 million troops into Manchuria. He’d spent those three months massing troops in the east while Japan believed he could broker a peace, or at least a cease-fire.

[Little_Nemo]

@Jackmannii

Hiroshima seems to have been picked largely because it hadn’t suffered significant damage previously, and the effect of the atomic bomb could be better judged.

That wasn’t happenstance. Hiroshima was on the list of cities that the Americans had intentionally not been conventionally bombing in order to keep them available for an atomic bombing.

[Little_Nemo]

@Voyager

Ever read Hersey’s “Hiroshima?” I think it counts as a terror weapon, especially thanks to the deaths by radiation after the bombing, something not a part of other equally deadly bombing runs.

The scientists underestimated the effects of radiation. They thought that anyone who was close enough to the explosion to receive a lethal dose of radiation would be killed by the explosion itself. So the expectation was that the atomic bomb would function essentially like a larger version of a conventional bomb; the casualties would be caused by the explosion and there wouldn’t be any significant number of people dying later.

[muldoonthief]

@Riemann

As I recall, it would in fact have been months before we could deploy another (third) one. But we created the impression that we could just keep going, and that’s what made them believe that they faced total annihilation.

You’re incorrect that it was months before the USA could deploy a third bomb. Here’s a transcript of a conversation between General Hull and Colonel Seaman about the availability of more atomic bombs. The next one was going to be ready to be dropped on Aug 19 (10 days after Nagasaki) then 3 or 4 more in September, 3 in October, then 3 a month for the foreseeable future.
They also discussed stopping using them as demonstrations as a way to force Japan to surrender, and saving them to use all at once as part of an invasion, under the theory that if two atomic bombs in 3 days haven’t forced a surrender, a third, fourth etc. won’t either. If that had happened - an invasion with a dozen or more atomic bombs used to clear the way - there wouldn’t be a Japan any more.

[Voyager]

@CalMeacham

Yes, but this was something new. Nobody – at least nobody in a position of authority – knew that radiation was going to be a big issue, or that death by exposure to radiation or fallout was going to be a major feature of the atomic bomb. I’ve read quotes by military leaders in which they said they didn’t believe it – that the victims suffered thermal burns. Another factor was the suddenness of it. You could generate a firestorm in Dresden by enough standard bombing, but it took time. The atomic bomb was a firestorm in a single shot. Add to that the intense radiation at all wavelengths. That contributed to the suffering and terror. People blinded, with flesh hanging in strips, with the patterns from their clothing seared into their skin. And the intense thirst. It was a quantum leap in misery. But it was largely unforeseen.

You misunderstood me. They were not considered terror weapons before Hiroshima, but they were between Hiroshima and the really nasty hydrogen bombs. “Shadow on the Hearth” is from 1950.

[Voyager]

@Little_Nemo

The scientists underestimated the effects of radiation. They thought that anyone who was close enough to the explosion to receive a lethal dose of radiation would be killed by the explosion itself. So the expectation was that the atomic bomb would function essentially like a larger version of a conventional bomb; the casualties would be caused by the explosion and there wouldn’t be any significant number of people dying later.

I was talking about the public reaction, and before Hiroshima of course atomic bombs were just that crazy science fiction stuff to the general public.

[Chronos]

@Voyager

You misunderstood me. They were not considered terror weapons before Hiroshima, but they were between Hiroshima and the really nasty hydrogen bombs.

OK, that I can buy, but it’s a much less impactful statement, since none have actually been used as weapons since it became apparent how terrible they are.

I guess that there’s a certain level of terror that comes from their mere existence, and the fact that they could be used, but that genie’s out of the bottle now, and can’t be put back in.

[RickJay]

I struggled to get past this paragraph:

@Jacobin

It is worth considering the following key points: The United States stands alone as the only nation to employ nuclear weapons with hostile intent. And it is the only nation to use them deliberately against civilians. The United States also considered using nuclear weapons as a means to bring about the end of both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. As best as can be discerned, neither the Soviet Union nor Russia has ever considered employing nuclear weapons offensively in a conflict in a manner similar to how the United States employed its nuclear weapons against Japan. Finally, the United States has upheld a nuclear “first use” doctrine, exited arms control treaties, and advocated for novel technologies to disrupt the nuclear balance.

Are these things hey points though? The first two are just a restatement of the subject at hand, and nothing else here matters; the alleged consideration of use in Korea and Vietnam isn’t relevant, the claim the USSR never considered using nukes is unprovable and irrelevant, and the last few points are silly and irrelevant.

At this point I am already so dubious of the honest intent of the author I don’t know why I should continue.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@RickJay

…the claim the USSR never considered using nukes is unprovable and irrelevant…

Here is one instance where the Soviets came close to using a nuke:

Sixty years ago, on October 1, 1962, four Soviet Foxtrot-class diesel submarines, each of which carried one nuclear-armed torpedo, left their base in the Kola Bay, part of the massive Soviet deployment to Cuba that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. An incident occurred on one of the submarines, B-59, when its captain, Valentin Savitsky, came close to using his nuclear torpedo. Although the Americans weren’t even aware of it at the time, it happened on the most dangerous day of the crisis, October 27. - SOURCE

[Asuka]

Wait, isn’t Russia currently threatening to use nuclear weapons against both Ukraine and NATO?

[Voyager]

@Chronos

OK, that I can buy, but it’s a much less impactful statement, since none have actually been used as weapons since it became apparent how terrible they are.

I guess that there’s a certain level of terror that comes from their mere existence, and the fact that they could be used, but that genie’s out of the bottle now, and can’t be put back in.

My point (and others.) Perhaps seeing how terrible they are was one big reason they haven’t been used. I grew up going through drills where we lined up in the school corridors away from windows, not like that was going to help. I was 11 and old enough to understand during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know what terror feels like. The genie is definitely out of the bottle. You can’t classify all of nuclear physics for the entire world.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Voyager

I was 11 and old enough to understand during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know what terror feels like.

I’m willing to bet kids in London felt the same during the Blitz and those were not nukes.

Point being, the thought you might get blown up is scary regardless of how you are blown up.