Why Use Atom Bombs on Civilans Barely 3wks after 1st Test Detonation?

originally posted by: edog11
It had nothing to do with saving lives; what a silly excuse to use and what an illogical line to believe. I guess Iraq was for democracy then?

IT--

War is won by killing more of the enemy than they kill of your own people.

In the pacific theater, the Americans killed 29 Japanese for every American that died. That's about as low a ratio as is recorded in warfare. A third of the casualties in Hiroshima were active duty soldiers and sailors in the imperial war machine.

The allies used the same technique of upping civilian casualties to expedite surrender. The firebombing of Dresden utterly destroyed a European cultural landmark, to achieve casualties on the scale of an atomic detonation. Hitler was unmoved by the destruction of Dresden; but after hitler was dead, Doenitz surrenders quickly because of the devastation of Dresden, and because he new it would be the inevitable fate of every German city until surrender.

Armies exist to kill people and break things. It's what they do.

Japan surrendered only when it had become obvious that their destruction was inescapable.

Japan actually recovered more quickly than Europe from the war, because much less of their homeland was destroyed by bombing. In Germany, Dresden had ceased to exist, and Berlin was reduced to a pile of rubble that looked like the surface of the moon. All of Germany's industry was completely wiped out, down to the bridges and railroad terminals used to ship food to the survivors who starved even after surrender.

The atomic bombs were cruel to be kind.

We needed to show the world we had a full functioning manufacturing system of bombs and so we dropped only two that we had.

1. The biggest problem was producing the uranium-235 or plutonium for at least 1 bomb. The cost back then was 100 million per month and it could have gone on into years to produce, so we did a poker hand bluff with 3 bombs worth of material.

2. The two bombs dropped actually saved countless lives. Japan was ready to fight to the death in a door to door street battle. After the two bombs the emperor quickly provided unconditional surrender.

3. Fire bombing of Japan was much worst than the two atomic bombs.

originally posted by: Graysen

Japan actually recovered more quickly than Europe from the war, because much less of their homeland was destroyed by bombing. In Germany, Dresden had ceased to exist, and Berlin was reduced to a pile of rubble that looked like the surface of the moon. All of Germany's industry was completely wiped out, down to the bridges and railroad terminals used to ship food to the survivors who starved even after surrender.

The atomic bombs were cruel to be kind.

We actually rebuilt much of Japan gave them democracy and women suffrage. Living there for 5 years I thought I would be spit on by older Japanese going to either of the bombed cities and the reaction was much different. There was a level of gratitude to America for not rape pillage and plundering their nation, but to help rebuild. They also see America as saving them from a very oppressed regime and so their success today to due much to what the US provided after the war and why we are very close allies.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think the Mazda car factory was destoyed in Nagasaki.

originally posted by: edog11
It had nothing to do with saving lives; what a silly excuse to use and what an illogical line to believe. I guess Iraq was for democracy then?
They wanted to test their new toys on cities and see the effects for themselves. If civillian life was at all a consideration, there would have been a warning detonation before any targets were selected. The US could have nuked a portion of the coast on the water, or even a legit military target/port/harbor or some farm land near the capital; again to demonstrate their power and give the Japanese the chance to surrender.
They didn't do that. They instead nuked a population center filled with civillians; without first demonstrating the power of their new toy in a way that half a million innocent civilians didn't have to die, then they did it again.

They wanted to destroy the cities and kill civilians and test their toy. Simple as that. And it had nothing to do with Japan not wanting to surrender. They were ready to surrender. The Emperor offered his katana to the victors(America) which speaks volumes about their intent.

And it had also nothing to do with the Soviets. The bombs actually motivated them to accelerate the development of their own nuclear weapons. If anything, Hiroshima and Nagasaki encouraged Stalin to get his nukes developed ASAP.


IT--

What in the hell does Iraq have to do with Japan in WWII lol?

Plenty of speculation went into targeting including as you say doing a demonstration offshore or in an unpopulated area. Right or wrong fear was it either wouldn't work or Japan wouldn't surrender because they weren't damaged by it. Fact is if the situation was reversed Japan would have had no qualms about leveling American cities and civilian populations, again look at their contemporary history and their conquest of China and the rape of Nanking, they were brutal and merciless force they gave no quarter didn't recognize Geneva conventions. They got slapped down hard because it had to be done. .
The fact that their recovery has been so quickly and they are now a strong ally speaks volumes as the end and occupation was handled correctly.

You can find many times in history when America made mistakes in judgment and force but this isn't one of them

a reply to: 11SK1180

Aye, that, a few other targets and 39,000–80,000 people.

I don't believe that they understood the effects of radiation back then. They just thought this was a big bomb.

The plans for the invasion of Japan had the US exploding other atomic weapons and then have the US troops march through the same area.

The military just viewed these as a way to clear big areas and make the invasion have fewer US causalities.

originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: Artesia

Sadly, the British convinced the Americans to build the Atomic bomb during WW2 , as a final solution, using British technology.

It was an Australian Nuclear Physicist who went to Washington to convince the Americans.

A decision he regretted for the rest of his life.

America had the time, money and space to develop it, something Britain didnt have.

Wrong actually the British didn't want to share the information at the time. By the time they did the lead they had was gone as American physicists had already passed the British research. In fact bomb design was restricted from the British.
Had they not played games with their research early on and only agreed to share when they knew the Americans figured out their research they would not have gotten locked out of bomb research. Naturally, they were upset and considered ending the supply of Canadian uranium and heavy water to force the Americans to again share, but Canada needed American supplies to produce them.

In 1943 cooperation was resumed but again with restrictions Truth be told with or without British help the Manhattan project would have developed a bomb. they spent a billion dollars on research. Plutonium research was still restricted as they were planning the next generation of thermal nuclear bombs.

originally posted by: Wildbob77
I don't believe that they understood the effects of radiation back then. They just thought this was a big bomb.

The plans for the invasion of Japan had the US exploding other atomic weapons and then have the US troops march through the same area.

The military just viewed these as a way to clear big areas and make the invasion have fewer US causalities.

They were aware of the damages caused by radiation what they did not know is what dosages were lethal and how our bodies react to exposure at different levels.

a reply to: edog11

As is all too often the case, some do insist upon claiming knowledge they don't possess.

Japan was not ready to surrender. They were, in fact, preparing to defend the Home Islands from invasion with Kamikaze attacks that would have dwarfed what had already happened at Okinawa, and other operations previous. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of planes, along with suicide boats, were found at airfields and harbors/inlets waiting to be used.

In China, there were many thousands of troops that would have been brought to the Home Islands for the defense of their homes.

Estimates at the time called for perhaps as many as a million allied casualties, as many as 400,000 dead. Japanese casualties were estimated to be several million. Several million.

Poison gas would have been used to blast open beachheads, along with, of course, high explosives. Japanese military leaders knew precisely where the landings were going to take place...there are, after all, a limited number of places suitable for such a gargantuan amphibious assault. They'd have met it head on with everything they had. Bloodbath isn't too strong a term...genocidal might even apply.

So, contrary to your stated opinion, the A-bomb did, indeed, save lives. Lots of 'em. Since my Dad, and several Uncles would have been on those landing craft, or in country...I'm just as glad the invasion never happened.

Oh, the Japanese military was more than ready to keep fighting. It took the Emperor personally ordering them to stand down to end it, despite peace envoys already having landed on Saipan to begin the surrender process.

The atom bombs were an exclamation point on the ending of the war in the Pacific. A message to the Sovs?? Not really. Since the Sovs, due to their rather thorough infiltration of the Manhattan Project, already knew about it, and had begun working towards their own atom bomb, which they had only a couple of years later..

a reply to: seagull

I could not agree more this is revisionist history at its finest.

The reality of the day was that in that time frame, cities were fair game: Just ask the residents of any European City in that era. Also people have a visceral reaction to atomic weapons, but seem to be okay with the carnage of Operation Meetinghouse which killed 100,000 and left a million homeless.

Also back to the OP in a ways. Yes they tested the bomb 3 weeks before they used it. At that time the plutonium AND enriched uranium were the most precious and expensive substances on the planet. It also was a theoretical exercise until Trinity so you would want to make sure it worked before you dropped it.

The Nazi's and Japan had bomb programs as well lest we forget and Heisenberg was no joke (it remains controversial if he stalled the German bomb program or he just lacked the brain power and resources to complete the project) and got as far as a primitive pile in a cave. Hitler and Tojo would have had zero qualms about dropping one on the Allies

If remember (and Googled) correctly, first atom bomb in all modern history ever, was tested by US on July 16, 1945 a reply to: Artesia

That maybe the wrong date and the wrong country. I believe the Germans used a small tactical nuclear weapon on Russia in their war on the eastern front long before we dropped the bomb.

a reply to: Artesia

To stop Japan from any other aggression. Force them to surrender.

Yep, it worked.

Fred..

originally posted by: JON666
That maybe the wrong date and the wrong country. I believe the Germans used a small tactical nuclear weapon on Russia in their war on the eastern front long before we dropped the bomb.

5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945 is correct for Trinity


There is no evidence that the Germans were able to build a bomb. Lots of evidence to the contrary:

Nazi'ism and the persecution of the Jews drove many of the brightest minds out of Europe to the US
The Norsk Hydro raid deprived the Germans of the heavy water they needed
The US and British grabbed the Belgium supply of uranium from the Congo denying it to the Nazi's
The relentless day and nighttime bombing forced the Nazi's to re prioritize other things
The lack of a system to deliver such a device long range aka "The Amerika Bomber"

a reply to: FredT

German physicists and members of the military conducted three nuclear weapons tests shortly before the end of World War II, one on the German island of Ruegen in the fall of 1944 and two in the eastern German state of Thuringia in March 1945. The tests, writes Karlsch, claimed up to 700 lives.

Because They NEEDED to test it on a City with people in it.
and to Show the Horror USA could do to YOU.
USA are EVIL...

the war was over for japan.
us has bomb'd every thing in japan before the nuc's.
japan had No Oil left.
All us uk ussr troops had nothing to do
as Germany had lost.

so the had NO real reason to drop one nuc!
never mind two!
They could have just left them to starve!

I would love to know what this new EMP weapon
the have been using to black out citys.

just read in yesterdays news,
"experts baffled over cause of power out in south America."
they will NOT say EMP...

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: FredT

German physicists and members of the military conducted three nuclear weapons tests shortly before the end of World War II, one on the German island of Ruegen in the fall of 1944 and two in the eastern German state of Thuringia in March 1945. The tests, writes Karlsch, claimed up to 700 lives.

There is ZERO proof, just speculation. No radiation traces, no nothing.

They did not have the fissile material they needed and once they lost the heavy water they lost the neutrino moderator needed to sustain a reaction. Lack of a reaction meant that they had no ability to transmute U-238 into P-239 for an implosion device. Lack of a large scale (think Oak Ridge) operation like the Y-12 plant using Calutrons for electromagnetic separation and the K-25 plant for gaseous diffusion. They also had a thermal separation plant but from what I understand it did not work very well.

This is just ONE plant and it was massive. It also used alot of electricity to the tune of over 300,000 KW.

All this to make enough material for 3 bombs Trinity, Little Boy, and Fat Man. More were on the way, but after the first 3 it would be a while.

Germany had to go great lengths to simply hide V-2 production and Me-262 etc. Never mind the large scale effort needed by the Manhattan project which would have drawn Immediate attention of the strategic bombing campaign.

They were trying but never got close.

originally posted by: buddha
Because They NEEDED to test it on a City with people in it.
and to Show the Horror USA could do to YOU.
USA are EVIL...

the war was over for japan.
us has bomb'd every thing in japan before the nuc's.
japan had No Oil left.
All us uk ussr troops had nothing to do
as Germany had lost.

Nope they DID not need to test it. They had already proven it with Trinity. It was done to force the Japanese to surrender. Given the down to the last man resistance they had encountered in the island hoping campaign, there was ZERO reason to think that invading the home islands would have been worse.

The causalites would have been in the millions.

so the had NO real reason to drop one nuc!
never mind two!
They could have just left them to starve!

So you saying that 2 atomic bombs are bad, but genocide is okay???? WTF?

Nuclear bombs = surrender = preservation of Japan
Blockade and starvation = genocide

I would love to know what this new EMP weapon
the have been using to black out citys.

just read in yesterdays news,
"experts baffled over cause of power out in south America."
they will NOT say EMP...

Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project aka CHAMP but far more likely they have a grid that is poorly maintained like Puerto Rico's than the USAF sending EMP cruise missiles to black them out.

originally posted by: Artesia

then a couple of them hastily dropped by US on Japanese civilian populations (Hiro,Naga) just a couple weeks later.

Only had two bombs duh....