Seventy Years Ago Today....

[Hypno-Toad]

An idea they clung to even as reports from the field increasingly showed otherwise.

Using the bomb in a “demo drop” would have been seen and announced as proof that we would not invade.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

All the guys who made the decisions – the decision to drop the bomb, the decision to invade Pearl Harbor, the decision to have a war in the first place – are dead. Dead, dead, dead.

The best option at this point is to study what happened, and avoid the massive stupid that led up to these horrible events in the future as best we can.

Donald Trump, that means YOU.

[bump]

@Shodan

On August 6, 1945, for the first time, an atomic weapon was used against humans. ISTM that it is appropriate, no matter whether you feel it was right or wrong, to remember that.

Absolutely appropriate as far as I’m concerned. My grandfather (not the bomber crewman one, but the other one) was a tank commander who’d spent most of the war stateside as an instructor, until early 1945, when he was transferred out to California, and started training with Marine units on the amphibious tractors.

Apparently the unit he was transferred into was slated to be part of either Operation Olympic or Coronet. So as far as I’m concerned, those bombs might be the reason I’m here to write this, because my grandfather would have been in the early waves of soldiers to land on the Japanese beaches.

I imagine it’s a bit more academic for people without my family history though…

[Foggy]

@Shodan

On August 6, 1945, for the first time, an atomic weapon was used against humans.

…and not the last.

[HubZilla]

It’s not really accurate to portray it as “invade or use nukes”. Operation Downfall would’ve used multiple nukes on Japanese positions anyway. The choice was use them in lieu of an invasion, or use them during an invasion. The point is: they were going to be used.

@wiki link above

(bolding mine)
On Marshall’s orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces.
…
Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, “[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops.”

There weren’t really moral qualms about radiation, as it wasn’t understood. Col. Seeman “advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours””. :eek:

Imagine Hiroshima x10, this time with our own soldiers also dying of radiation sickness.

[bump]

@HubZilla

It’s not really accurate to portray it as “invade or use nukes”.

Sure, but what I was getting at is that the atomic bombs were used in an attempt to forestall an impending invasion.

The decision tree was “Nukes”, then if that didn’t force them to capitulate, “Invade and use Nukes” was the next step.
And the argument that the nukes saved lives is poor word choice; prevented likely deaths is more accurate, in that the planned invasions of Japan were expected to have death tolls on the US side upwards of 100,000, which would have been 20% of the death toll of the entire war, Europe and Pacific combined, and those are some of the lower estimates that were being thrown around. Deaths on the Japanese side were expected to be much higher, in line with the prior battles in the war.

So if you look at it from the perspective of killing half a million people with the nukes prevented something like 3x that number from being killed in a land invasion, it seems like a really good outcome, all things considered.

[Flyer]

@ralph124c

There was a proposal (made by Oppenheimer?) to drop the first a-bomb on an island in Tokyo bay (Eta Jima). this would have afforded a demonstration, and not killed anybody. Would this have convinced the military dictatorship that ruled Japan?

No way, no how. As it was, Hirohito had to drag the Cabinet kicking and screaming, and risked his life in the process.

@HubZilla

It’s not really accurate to portray it as “invade or use nukes”. Operation Downfall would’ve used multiple nukes on Japanese positions anyway. The choice was use them in lieu of an invasion, or use them during an invasion. The point is: they were going to be used.

There weren’t really moral qualms about radiation, as it wasn’t understood. Col. Seeman “advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours””. :eek:

Imagine Hiroshima x10, this time with our own soldiers also dying of radiation sickness.

I’m far from an expert, but it’s my understanding that much of the worst radiation would be over by the 48-hour mark.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@ralph124c

There was a proposal (made by Oppenheimer?) to drop the first a-bomb on an island in Tokyo bay (Eta Jima). this would have afforded a demonstration, and not killed anybody. Would this have convinced the military dictatorship that ruled Japan?

Dropping one on Hiroshima didn’t convince them, which is why a second one got dropped on Nagasaki; you think not killing anybody would’ve been more convincing?