Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

[Admiral Valdemar]

If memory serves, it's possible that the Japanese government simply didn't know the extent of the damage done by the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Their lines of communication were disrupted, so they simply may not have had all the information by the time we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. Had we waited longer, they might very well have surrendered.

I had always heard that, due to a communications problem such as a response being delayed due to other factors or not translated in time, the surrender response wasn't delivered to the Allies before the second bombing.

[Sea Skimmer]

If memory serves, it's possible that the Japanese government simply didn't know the extent of the damage done by the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Their lines of communication were disrupted, so they simply may not have had all the information by the time we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. Had we waited longer, they might very well have surrendered.

Japan still had fine communications throughout the home islands by radio and telephone, and they had already witnessed the total destruction of far larger cities, so its not like whoever's talking on the phone needs to convey some unprecedented level of destruction to the goverment. Just the fact that one bomber did it. In addition, the US ceased other forms of air attacks during the period of the atomic bombings so that there would be no other distractions. Though by the time Japan did finally surrender B-29's and Task Force 58 had begun striking again as it was belived the bombs had failed in their mission.

[Broomstick]

If memory serves, it's possible that the Japanese government simply didn't know the extent of the damage done by the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Their lines of communication were disrupted, so they simply may not have had all the information by the time we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. Had we waited longer, they might very well have surrendered.

Your point about communications is a valid question - were the results of Hiroshima communicated adequately to the Japanese command?

Today we take global communications and satellite photos for granted, but none of that existed back then. Oh, yes, there were a few trans-oceanic phone and telegraph lines, but nothing like we have today.

But Sea Skimmer is also correct that, within Japan, the military did have lines of communication. Also correct that entire cities had been obliterated before - the novelty wasn't the extent of destruction but rather the technique. In July 1945 it might take the US six hours, a hundred bombers, and a thousand bombs to destroy a city. Suddenly, in August, it took one bomber one drop to destroy one city -- but we still have those hundred bombers, don't we? In which case, the question is do we have more than one of those bombs? Nagasaki answered that question.

The truth is, that was just about the entire supply of A-bombs at the time... but the Japanese didn't know that. And even if they did, they would have to know that we could and would build more of them.

What happens to Japan if 100 bombers take out one city apiece with each pass, and continue to make passes for 6 hours, as they did during the Tokyo firebombing?

And even after Nagasaki some did not want to surrender....

No, I don't think bombing Hiroshima alone would have done it. If someone believes that (rather than hopes that) let them provide some evidence that the Japanese command wanted to surrender, but simply didn't have time to get the message out.

[Broomstick]

I had always heard that, due to a communications problem such as a response being delayed due to other factors or not translated in time, the surrender response wasn't delivered to the Allies before the second bombing.

The Japanese embassy in Washington, DC was supposed to deliver a formal declaration of war in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that was delayed due, as you say, "other factors". Perhaps the two have become conflated over time?

Yamamoto had insisted on the war declaration, having a good idea of the American culture and outlook (he had lived and studied in the US, in fact he attended Harvard University). He knew very well what the effect of "sneak attack" would be - which is why he tried to "play fair" to some degree. He made reference to how the US would react in his "we have awakened a sleeping giant" speech he delivered after Pearl Harbor.

A request broadcast in the open by the Japanese government, after Hiroshima, requesting more time to re-establish communications or more time to study the problem might have bought them more time between the two bombings. You also have to remember that at the time the US didn't quite know what the effects of these bombs on actual cities would be - if the US had been told all communications had been wiped out they would have had no reason to doubt such a statement.

But that is not what actually happened.

[Broomstick]

In addition, the US ceased other forms of air attacks during the period of the atomic bombings so that there would be no other distractions.

Not true - at least two other cities were bombed in that time period, as I mentioned in a previous post (actually, more than one post) in this thread.

[The Dark]

If memory serves, it's possible that the Japanese government simply didn't know the extent of the damage done by the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Their lines of communication were disrupted, so they simply may not have had all the information by the time we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. Had we waited longer, they might very well have surrendered.

I had always heard that, due to a communications problem such as a response being delayed due to other factors or not translated in time, the surrender response wasn't delivered to the Allies before the second bombing.

The delivery of the cessation of negotiations before Pearl Harbor was delayed due to a translation error. The Japanese Cabinet chose to allow the Emperor to declare a cease-fire when news arrived of the Nagasaki bombing during a Cabinet meeting. Until that point, the military members of the Cabinet had managed to persuade the civilian members to proceed with Ketsu-go (IIRC), which was the plan to deploy the militias along with the military to fight off the American invasion fleet. The simple fact is, when the timing of events is examined, the Japanese decision to end the war occurred when news of the Nagasaki bombing reached the government. There was no organized movement to end the war until that time.

[Broomstick]

A few tidbits from Desicion at Nagasaki: The Mission That Almost Failed by Fred J. Olivi. Mr. Olivi was one of the pilots on the B-29 that delivered the bomb to Nagasaki. It's not the most lively read, but it is interesting since it was written by someone who was actually there on the scene.

I learned our mission orginally had been scheduled for August 11, but the meteorologists had been predicting bad weather over the Japanese Empire during that time period, so this second A-Bomb mission was moved up to August 9th.

So it looks like the original plan was to give the Japanese more time to look over Hiroshima, but weather became a factor. Might be worth remembering that during the 1940's the airplanes were much less capable of handling extreme weather than our biggest airplanes are today, and instrument navigation was not nearly as developed as now.

From the August 9, 1945 pre-flight briefing:

Something very unusual occured at our briefing, something I'll always remember: Colonel Tibbets gave us a choice. I recall he said somethin g like, "If any of you don't want to go on this mission, where there's no doubt we will be bombing civilians with this new atomic bomb, just say so. If you feel uncomfortable about this, you're free to step down. No action will be taken against you. If that's the way you feel, we'll respect it."

I can't speak for any other member of the three crews selected for this mission, but I was surprised. Never before in my military career had any on given me the opportunity not to go on a mission.

All of us knew about the fire bombing of Tokyo. We knew from our daily briefings about the bombing of Cologne and Dresden where thousands of civilians had died. No one took Colonel Tibbets up on his offer. Rather, I think all of us hoped this second atomic bomb would end the conflict sooner. In itself, that was enough reason to go.

He also mentions that it would have been September before a third bomb could be ready for a drop.

Originally, their target was not Nagasaki but Kokura - however, Kokura was obscured by clouds and they were under strict orders to drop the bomb using only visual targeting - so they continued on to their secondary target, and that is how Nagasaki came to be bombed.

They actually missed their target - they were off by about a mile and a half. Of course, "almost" does count in nuclear warfare, but if they had been directly on target the death toll probably would have been even higher.

On August 14, with the Japanese yet to surrender, yet another bombing mission was flown (strictly conventional weapons this time). So five days after Nagasaki, and a week after Hiroshima, the Japanese still had not surrended.

About half this book is appendixes of various sorts - including copies of leaflets warning civilians to flee selected cities that were under threat of atomic bombs. Wonder if anyone who read them believed them or acted upon the warning?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

About half this book is appendixes of various sorts - including copies of leaflets warning civilians to flee selected cities that were under threat of atomic bombs. Wonder if anyone who read them believed them or acted upon the warning?

The Japanese government regarded the leaflets as a ruse to make people flee those cities, causing work stoppage in the armaments industries there. Nobody heeded them.

P.S. As for the question of knowledge of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese government knew within just hours after the event. Reports of a "massive cloud" over Hiroshima resulted in the dispatch of a navy scout plane, which in fact flew through the mushroom cloud. The men aboard that scout plane lived long enough to return to base and file a report on their experiences, but not much longer than that. So by the end of the day on which the attack took place the Japanese military had a report in hand from direct aerial observation of Hiroshima.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Japanese government regarded the leaflets as a ruse to make people flee those cities, causing work stoppage in the armaments industries there. Nobody heeded them.

P.S. As for the question of knowledge of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese government knew within just hours after the event. Reports of a "massive cloud" over Hiroshima resulted in the dispatch of a navy scout plane, which in fact flew through the mushroom cloud. The men aboard that scout plane lived long enough to return to base and file a report on their experiences, but not much longer than that. So by the end of the day on which the attack took place the Japanese military had a report in hand from direct aerial observation of Hiroshima.

It didn't help that the crew in there curiosity while flying through the mushroom cloud, opened the cockpit canopy twice to reached out and feel the smoke.

[Shroom Man 777]

To anyone concerned, I've stopped arguing. I don't feel like arguing in circles, and I'm not experienced enough to actually succeed in any attempt at doing so. Besides, I lack the resources and knowledge to debunk any and all of their arguements, and I lack the patience. If anyone is willing to argue for me, like how you guys help each other when dealing with those Trektard forums, then you're very welcomed to. I'm throwing in the towel. I'd throw in the towel if I was arguing with some Creationist with a nigh-impenetrable wall of ignorance too.

[Admiral_K]

The only thing that I can see being a "negative" of the bombing was that it didnt give the Japanese the option to fight and defend themselves honorably in fair combat. .

Yeah just like the Japaneese gave us the option to fight and defend ourselves hnorobably with their sneak attack of Pearl Harbor

[Lagmonster]

The only thing that I can see being a "negative" of the bombing was that it didnt give the Japanese the option to fight and defend themselves honorably in fair combat. .

Yeah just like the Japaneese gave us the option to fight and defend ourselves hnorobably with their sneak attack of Pearl Harbor

"Honourably"? How does a good tactical decision involve a consideration of one's honour?

[Admiral_K]

The only thing that I can see being a "negative" of the bombing was that it didnt give the Japanese the option to fight and defend themselves honorably in fair combat. .

Yeah just like the Japaneese gave us the option to fight and defend ourselves hnorobably with their sneak attack of Pearl Harbor

"Honourably"? How does a good tactical decision involve a consideration of one's honour?

It doesn't. All's fair in love and war right?

I was simpy addressing Icehawk's notion that we didn't do the "honorable" thing and attempt to take Japan through conventional troop landings.