As septimus alludes to above, I think the biggest positive unintended consequence of the dropping of the atomic bomb in WWII and then subsequently not using in in Korea or in Vietnam, is that it became not just another bigger bomb. It became something not to be use again. And if it hadn’t been used in WWII, it might have been used in Korea, and then who know how it’s viewed.
Sigh. Did you read the OP? No ‘I’ don’t think that is the case, but you have to make that assumption to debate the question, because, you know, if we did use them then history would have been exactly what it was. Seriously, do you understand the concept of alternative history debates?
It isn’t central to the blockade. If we are going to look at all of the ramifications of not ending the war and having the US go on continuous blockade I’d question if there would BE a North Korea, as it’s quite possible that the USSR would have simply taken the entire country and put a unified puppet government in it’s place. I’m unsure if the US et al, still engaged in blockading Japan, would have been in a position to dispute that with the Russians, or would have bothered at that time and place.
Did the Japanese have a sizable army in Manchuria that could be considered a military target for a nuclear weapon?
The strike needed to be against the Japanese homeland.
‘If you don’t surrender, it’s not just your invading armies that will cease to exist. It is the Empire of Japan - including your emperor.’
Regards,
Shodan
The Kwantung Army in 1945 (according to wiki) is estimated to have been around 700-725 thousand troops. However, they would not have been conveniently clustered into a small-town-sized area.
IMO, dispersed troops (and ships) are poor targets for the still rare atomic bombs. Atomic bombs are strategic warfare weapons. Better targets for those weapons would be major dockyards, rail centers, industrial complexes, hydroelectric dams, and so forth.
That’s almost beautiful, Chauncy.
AKA the Picard option.
The author of the video also failed to mention that the Russians would have invaded if the Americans had not. Russians care less about casualties and would have employed every nasty weapon available on civilians if they felt like it.
So the blockading forces would have had to sit there while Russian troops, after massive poison gas attacks and firebombing, would have taken island after island. The Russians were tough on German civilians and would have done the same to Japanese.
Even IF the U.S. blockaded instead of either invading or using atomic weapons, and even IF the Soviet Union wouldn’t go forward and invade Hokkaido after it took Salkhalin and the Kuril Islands. . .
There would still be the matter of 700,000 Imperial Japanese troops in Manchuria, cut off from any kind of support from their home, and about to be overwhelmed by a bigger and better equipped Soviet force.
The absolute best those troops could hope for would be to be thrown in prisoner camps until a Japanese peace treaty was finally signed … 1948? 1950? Who knows. And based on the Soviet treatment of German prisoners, it wouldn’t have been pretty.
Russia had virtually no navy and no landing craft except what we gave them. No aircraft carriers or Battleships to support the landing. No, they couldn’t.
wiki *"By August 1945, the Pacific Fleet consisted of two cruisers, one destroyer leader, ten destroyers, two torpedo boats, 19 patrol boats, 78 submarines, ten minelayers, 52 minesweepers, 49 “MO” anti-submarine boats (MO stands for Малый Охотник, or “little hunter”), 204 motor torpedo boats and 1459 war planes.
*
Was it impossible for the Germans to invade Norway in 1940?
To be fair the Russians had an axe to grind when it came to the Germans. Not so with the Japanese. They probably would not have been nice but with no score to settle they might not have been as vigorous about it.
Let alone the fact that nuking Manchuria meant nuking territory claimed by China, America’s ally. It’s a non-starter.
If the war had been prolonged, the Soviets would have invaded with the Allies and they would have likely remained in part of Japan for decades just as they did in Eastern Europe.
Norway was taken almost by surprise and it’s army wasn’t mobilized. And of course there was Vidkun Quisling.
However the Imperial Japanese forces were well prepared and experienced at defending against naval invasions.
Sounds like plenty to back up an invading force using only fishing boats and aircraft for transport.
Hadn’t the Czar as well as Communist Russia lost wars to the Japanese? I recall Nicholas II calling the Japanese “Little yellow monkeys”.
With almost complete surprise against a non-militarized nation, and yet they still lost a large portion of their Navy and the lion’s share of their transport aircraft destroyed.
The Russo-Japanese war but that was 40 years earlier and you had WWI and WWII in there where Russia fought Germany. In WWII the level of suffering inflicted by the Germans on the Russians was pretty off the charts and a heckuva lot more fresh in the Russian mind.