Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

[Chmee]

Does such a discussion even apply to Japan, given that Japan had moved factors of production into the homes surrounding factories and were using/preparing to use civilians for military construction and combat?

Al Qaeda could use that argument to say that the World Trade Center was a viable target because they thought an FBI agent was in there ... or banking computers that are the tools of Western oppression .... pick your ideological justification for just not caring how many women & kids you kill to terrorize the other side into surrender, but you're still just avoiding dealing with the fact that terror is your central weapon. When you burn out 15 square miles of a city and kill 80,000 people, I can't see 'well some of 'em were mechanics' as much more than a thin veil to put over the fact that your deliberate strategy is to just slaughter the other side's population until they give up.

[Stormbringer]

That might have been, hell probably was, a consideration. But the fact is that both the fire raids and the atom bombs were aimed at cities who's destruction would serve a viable military purpose. The destruction of the industry in the cities, especially the cottage-type industry, would have a real and profound military impact. We quite literally gutted Japanese war production with that methodologt.

September 11th, that was not really directed against US war production however clumsily. It was meant simply to kill people, any benefits from it were secondary.

[Julhelm]

I think Nagasaki happened mainly because the US wanted to see which type of bomb (Little Boy was uranium-, and Fatman plutonium-based) was the more effective.

[Mange]

No, it was not necessary, Japan would have been forced to surrender in any case, even though the war was shortened with the atomic bombs. Hundreds of thousands of civilians endured horror beyond imagination, but I wouldn't call it a war crime.

[CJvR]

Japan would have been forced to surrender in any case

That was true ever since the first bomb fell on Pearl Harbor, the only question was how bad a beating Japan would take before going down.

[CJvR]

I think Nagasaki happened mainly because the US wanted to see which type of bomb (Little Boy was uranium-, and Fatman plutonium-based) was the more effective.

They knew that already, the test device set off in the US was a Plutonium bomb.

[Mange]

Japan would have been forced to surrender in any case

That was true ever since the first bomb fell on Pearl Harbor, the only question was how bad a beating Japan would take before going down.

Yes, I agree, but the military situation wasn't that good for Japan in August 1945. The Japanese were in retreat on every front and the Guangdong army met its demise in China in battle against Soviet forces.

[Julhelm]

I think Nagasaki happened mainly because the US wanted to see which type of bomb (Little Boy was uranium-, and Fatman plutonium-based) was the more effective.

They knew that already, the test device set off in the US was a Plutonium bomb.

I disagree. There's a huge difference between testing it on a lifeless desert and a city full of people.

[Illuminatus Primus]

To claim that the 9/11 attacks were not infrastructural in nature is totally delusional. They were aimed at striking and disrupting our military, political, and financial leadership, and therefore targeted the Pentagon, the Capitol or White House (but failed), and the World Trade Center.

And they did effect economic harm on the U.S. with their attack.

[CJvR]

but the military situation wasn't that good for Japan in August 1945.

LOL! Thats an understatement! The Japanese situation had been bad since PH, desperate since Midway, disasterous since the Marianas and apocalyptic since Leyte.

[CJvR]

I disagree. There's a huge difference between testing it on a lifeless desert and a city full of people.

Yes you get much better results from a carefully controlled test enviroment.

[Lord MJ]

Japan would have been forced to surrender in any case

That was true ever since the first bomb fell on Pearl Harbor, the only question was how bad a beating Japan would take before going down.

If Pearl Harbor was executed properly, Japan would've defeated the US, and forced it to sign a peace treaty.

As a result, Japan would've maintained it's empire in the Pacific. Of course the US forces in Europe would've been unaffected, and Nazi Germany would've still died a horrible and painful death at the hands of the allies.

The intention of Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the US military as a power in Pacific, but they missed crucial targets, and as a result Pearl Harbor was for all intents and purposes, a failure.

[Ma Deuce]

I think Nagasaki happened mainly because the US wanted to see which type of bomb (Little Boy was uranium-, and Fatman plutonium-based) was the more effective.

It was more than just a matter of fissile material: The Hiroshima (Little Boy) bomb used a gun-type mechanism (basically using a gun tube to fire a small mass of U235 into a larger one, creating a supercritical mass), which the Manhattan team was absolutely certain would work and thus never saw a need to test the design before it was actually used: the Nagasaki (Fat Man) bomb used a far more complex (but also far more efficient) implosion-type mechanism: this was the type of bomb used in the original Trinity test...

FYI, "Fat Man" didn't only use Plutonium 239 as it's fissile material ("Little Boy" used only U235): It actually contained Uranium 238 as well, in fact more U238 than P239: Within the warhead's outer sphere of explosives (that created the implosion that compressed the fissile material to supercritical density) was a thick layer of U238: within that was a thin shell of P239, and finally, suspended within that was a small ball of polonium and beryllium that served as an initiator by releasing many stray neutrons during detonation, amplifying the reaction...

[Iceberg]

Incidentally, the US Navy wanted to push for an invasion. They estimated over a MILLION American servicemen would become statistics during an invasion of Japan, and the best estimates placed the number of Japanese dead at around 16 million.

There was also the fact that the Navy estimated that a nuclear attack would (and in fact did) give the Air Force a distinct advantage in the post-WW2 political environment. That advantage continued until Korea and even after Korea.

[CJvR]

If Pearl Harbor was executed properly, Japan would've defeated the US, and forced it to sign a peace treaty.

No they could never have done that. Japan had 10% of the US industrial capability and there was no way the US would let itself be defeated by the Japs. Even if the PH operation had been a total success bagging all eight obsolete battleships and both carriers then what? The US could build fleets far more powerful and advanced than anything Japan could put together.

Japan completed two battleships and two large fleet carriers as well as 3-6 light fleet carriers during the war.
The US built 11 battleships and three battlecruisers at that same time, including ships that would have been completed if the war had been longer. The US also built three heavy fleet carriers and 24 fleet carriers during that period and the RN also completed two BBs, a pair of fleet carriers and had a 15 light fleet carriers in the pipeline.
As you can see the losses at PH & Singapore was rather insignificant in comparisson to what the US & British industy would build to replace them, even if greater Japanese success would have shielded them from some of the predation from the submarines even a trippeling of production would mean fighting a losing battle.

[CJvR]

PS: there should be two more light carriers in the Japanes construction figures, forgot Junyo & Hiyo.

[Petrosjko]

Hmm...

Makes one curious to think that the Japanese military position actually could've ended up more untenable if they'd had full success at Pearl Harbor. So they take more turf, extend their lines further, parcel out their limited assets further, while not being able to strike at the US' infrastructure at all. So the war would've lasted a bit longer, but in the end the island hopping campaign would've had more islands to bypass.

Interesting notion.

[CJvR]

The only way Japan could have won would be if the US lost it's will to fight. Now give the IJN a total success at PH and you will get a butchers bill going on 20.000 probably. Would that make the US more or less pissed? It is hard playing a sympathetic little harmless victim when you are Imperialist with a capital I and agressive with a capital A.

The Japanese, with the absence of the USN, could roam even more freely than it actually did. But what could Japan conquer that would tip the scales? Nothing! Add Port Moresby, New Hebrides, New Caledonia, Samoa, Hawaii, the Aleutian islands and eastern India to the Japanese conquests and think about how much of the allied industrial capability they have conquered in such a victory - next to nothing!!! And that is assuming they could even get that far, the struggle up the Hawaii chain would have made the Guadacanal operation seem like a pleasant holliday.

[Lord MJ]

If Pearl Harbor was executed properly, Japan would've defeated the US, and forced it to sign a peace treaty.

No they could never have done that. Japan had 10% of the US industrial capability and there was no way the US would let itself be defeated by the Japs. Even if the PH operation had been a total success bagging all eight obsolete battleships and both carriers then what? The US could build fleets far more powerful and advanced than anything Japan could put together.

The US would not have been able to rebuild anything in that time, if Pearl Harbor was successful.

Pearl Harbor was a failure not because Japan couldn't destroy the ships, it was a failure because they didn't destroy the US navies lifeblood. The oil fields and other facilities of Pearl harbor were left completely untouched.

If they were successful, the US Navy in the Pacific would've been totally incapacitated for several years, at least twice as long as it was incapacitated in real life.

The only reason the US would choose to fight on, is because the American people would have the administrations throats if decided to cut our losses and sign a peace treaty.

[CJvR]

The US would not have been able to rebuild anything in that time, if Pearl Harbor was successful.

Sure they would have, who would have stopped them? Would Yamato steam up the East coast and shell the yards? That's half a hostile world away!

Pearl Harbor was a failure not because Japan couldn't destroy the ships, it was a failure because they didn't destroy the US navies lifeblood. The oil fields and other facilities of Pearl harbor were left completely untouched.

You mean the oil depot? Yes that would have been a serious problem but remember the US built the thing in the first place so reconstructing it when Hawaii was secured again would not be an impossible task. Even if PH was a total writeoff with all it's content it would not alter the outcome of the war, only the timetable and the names of the battles fought.
Also remeber that in 1946 the US will be able to concentrate fully in the Pacific shifting the massive sealift capability used to support the armies in Europe to the Pacific instead.

If they were successful, the US Navy in the Pacific would've been totally incapacitated for several years, at least twice as long as it was incapacitated in real life.

No it would not have been incapacitated. It would have been restricted to using other less capable bases such as Australia, Samoa, Alaska, the US west coast - it's main base IIRC and Ceylon. It would probably have been forced to slow it's operational tempo but it would not have been totaly passive and down for the count. Even after a disaster at PH the USN had 7 BBs & 5 CVs available and could probably loan a few each from the RN as well.
Besides what could Japan have done even if they had twice as much time as they did historicly? (about a year more before the US counter attacks begin) What can they do in that time to prevent the steel tsunami coming their way?

The only reason the US would choose to fight on, is because the American people would have the administrations throats if decided to cut our losses and sign a peace treaty.

In a democracy the will of the people is the most powerful force imaginable. The only reason you say, what more reason do you need? Have you ever read about second Punic war? Hannibal smashed the greatest army ever fielded by the Roman republic and broke up a third of the Itallian alliance - yet when the smoke cleared it was the Romans that plowed down salt in the fields of Cartage, such was the will of the people and Senate of Rome. You should be careful when you pissoff democracys - they are less likely than kings to sit down and make rational cost/gain calculations when it comes to war.

[Perinquus]

If Pearl Harbor was executed properly, Japan would've defeated the US, and forced it to sign a peace treaty.

No they could never have done that. Japan had 10% of the US industrial capability and there was no way the US would let itself be defeated by the Japs. Even if the PH operation had been a total success bagging all eight obsolete battleships and both carriers then what? The US could build fleets far more powerful and advanced than anything Japan could put together.

The US would not have been able to rebuild anything in that time, if Pearl Harbor was successful.

This is absolute nonsense. Even if the Japanese strike force at PH had absolutely wiped every U.S. military installation in the Hawaiian islands off the map, destroyed every last plane, sunk every last ship, etc. and even invaded and occupied the Hawaiian islands, it would have done nothing except delay the inevitable. This is because none of our natural resources, and none of our heavy industry, including our shipbuilding facilities, was located in Hawaii. Even had the Japanese succeeded beyond their wildest dreams at Pearl Harbor, it would merely have meant a longer period of U.S. weakness in the Pacific, perhaps the inability of the U.S. submarine fleet to begin choking off Japan's vital shipping until much later, and the Hawaiian Islands would have had to be retaken before the U.S. could advance toward Japan itself. Eventually, inevitably, the American industrial juggernaut would still have gotten up steam and absolutely crushed Japan. Even the total destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and a Japanese occupation of Hawaii would only have prolonged the war, not enabled a Japanese victory. The war would have dragged on at most another year, and perhaps a bit more, and ended up with Japan still crushed, still atom bombed, and likely with Soviet troops occupying the northern part of the country as well.

Pearl Harbor was a failure not because Japan couldn't destroy the ships, it was a failure because they didn't destroy the US navies lifeblood. The oil fields and other facilities of Pearl harbor were left completely untouched.

Pearl Harbor had only oil storage facilities, not oil fields producing a vital raw material, and even if it had, the U.S. still had abundant other oil resources. Japanese destruction of Pearl Harbor's refueling facilities would have been nothing but a minor setback in the overall scheme of things.

If they were successful, the US Navy in the Pacific would've been totally incapacitated for several years, at least twice as long as it was incapacitated in real life.

I'm inclined to think that estimate rather pessimistic. We could produce shipping faster than the axis powers could sink it by war's end. Had the situation been more desperate than it was, we would have been commensurately more desperate in our efforts to ramp up production. Ultimately, there is simply no way in hell a nation with 10% of our industrial capacity was ever going to be able to defeat us as long as we had the will to fight. And nothing that ever happened in the entire course of the war even came close to breaking our will to fight. I cannot conceive of anything that would have, apart from a Japanese invasion and occupation of the continental United States, which was never even remotely a realistic possibility.

The only reason the US would choose to fight on, is because the American people would have the administrations throats if decided to cut our losses and sign a peace treaty.

Thank you, concession accepted. You just admit here that the government suing for peace would have been politically unthinkable. The Japanese were not about to sue for peace either, as long as we were ready to go on fighting. And given the hugely assymetrical nature of the combatants' respective industrial capabilities, the only possible result of an American/Japanese war where neither side will capitulate short of total defeat, only one outcome is possible - total defeat for Japan.

[phongn]

I've read that even the oil facilities probably would have survived a hypothetical third attack wave. It takes a lot to get fuel oil to catch fire and there were other defenses like large berms and such to keep it from spilling everywhere. There's also the firefighters who can try and get it out even if strafed.

In Desert Storm, apparently they had to use heavy LGBs, napalm, cluster bombs and a whole host of weapons to get Iraqi oil depots burning. That's a bit much for the IJN.

[Patrick Degan]

No they could never have done that. Japan had 10% of the US industrial capability and there was no way the US would let itself be defeated by the Japs. Even if the PH operation had been a total success bagging all eight obsolete battleships and both carriers then what? The US could build fleets far more powerful and advanced than anything Japan could put together.

Only two U.S. carriers were at Pearl at the beginning of December, 1941, the Enterprise and the Lexington. Even if both had been lost in the attack, we still had the Saratoga, Yorktown, Wasp, and Ranger in service and the USS Essex was building on the slipway, as were the far more advanced North Carolina-, Washington-, and South Dakota-class battleships.

Even if the Japanese strike force at PH had absolutely wiped every U.S. military installation in the Hawaiian islands off the map, destroyed every last plane, sunk every last ship, etc. and even invaded and occupied the Hawaiian islands, it would have done nothing except delay the inevitable. This is because none of our natural resources, and none of our heavy industry, including our shipbuilding facilities, was located in Hawaii. Even had the Japanese succeeded beyond their wildest dreams at Pearl Harbor, it would merely have meant a longer period of U.S. weakness in the Pacific, perhaps the inability of the U.S. submarine fleet to begin choking off Japan's vital shipping until much later, and the Hawaiian Islands would have had to be retaken before the U.S. could advance toward Japan itself. Eventually, inevitably, the American industrial juggernaut would still have gotten up steam and absolutely crushed Japan. Even the total destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and a Japanese occupation of Hawaii would only have prolonged the war, not enabled a Japanese victory. The war would have dragged on at most another year, and perhaps a bit more, and ended up with Japan still crushed, still atom bombed, and likely with Soviet troops occupying the northern part of the country as well.

It was a strain on Japanese resources even to mount the Pearl Harbour attack and the later Midway/Aleutians Operation; striking that far westward put their logistics on a very thin tether. The situation would have been far worse for any attempted invasion of the Hawaiian islands. The resulting battle would probably have resembled the Guadalcanal campaign, and the U.S. would eventually have won that fight if it had unfolded.

Pearl Harbor was a failure not because Japan couldn't destroy the ships, it was a failure because they didn't destroy the US navies lifeblood. The oil fields and other facilities of Pearl harbor were left completely untouched.

Pearl Harbor had only oil storage facilities, not oil fields producing a vital raw material, and even if it had, the U.S. still had abundant other oil resources. Japanese destruction of Pearl Harbor's refueling facilities would have been nothing but a minor setback in the overall scheme of things.

The Americans would have had to rebuild the base, but as is demonstrated by the rapid construction work carried out at Ulithi and the other anchorages we captured in 1944, Pearl Harbour would not have been out of action for more than six months, if that.

[HemlockGrey]

When you burn out 15 square miles of a city and kill 80,000 people, I can't see 'well some of 'em were mechanics' as much more than a thin veil to put over the fact that your deliberate strategy is to just slaughter the other side's population until they give up.

Of course, it is still a morally superior option to simply invading and winding up with 16 million dead.

[tharkûn]

When you burn out 15 square miles of a city and kill 80,000 people, I can't see 'well some of 'em were mechanics' as much more than a thin veil to put over the fact that your deliberate strategy is to just slaughter the other side's population until they give up.

Meh. If they wanted an open city to protect their civillians there were procedures to do so.

In any event forget about invading, it is morally superior to firebomb 80,000 than to have millions starve to death because you are blockading the home islands and the manpower demands for the military and industry are putting a dent in farming. Every soldier you kill means one less able bodied young man to work the rice patties. Every ship you sink to deprive them of war goods is one less that gets to ship food.

The IJ government was more than willing to let the civillians starve to feed and equip the military, waiting is the surest way to kill the most Japanese civillians.

Firebombing or starving them out. Lousy choice, but firebombing causes fewer dead bodies so it wins out.