Nutjob tries to vandalize the Enola Gay

[Bob McDob]

So am I alone in knowing of a story whereby after Hiroshima the Japanese command were falling over themselves to get a decent reply to the Allies before they dropped the second bomb, but due to clerical error, failed to deliver on time? I always heard the Emperor was even seeing it as the end and a conditional surrender was necessary.

I'm aware of the story of how renegade Army officers tried to seize a Tokyo radio stations shortly after the second bomb fell to rally support for a fight to the death. If they had done that, all the deaths caused by the bombs would have been for naught.

[HemlockGrey]

They probably leapt to that conclusion based on the sketchy information they had available. I don't see how they could have come to a solid scientific conclusion that quickly, given their limited resources.

Japan had a nuclear program itself, and they knew that America had been working on a new bomb, and a seven-man team that arrived in Hiroshima on August 7th ascertained that it was most likely a nuclear bomb which had destroyed the city. Further, Truman announced it point-blank on August 6th.

And your evidence that, say, an extra week and an ultimatum would have made no difference is ...?

After Hiroshima? The ultimatum was given, but unconditional surrender was not considered, the Emperor was not able to intervene, and the council had a majority of 'fight-on' votes, the hawks still controlled the government, and they proved unwilling to surrender even after Nagasaki.

Do you have any evidence that Japan would have surrendered with merely a lower-level demonstration, or am I confusing the burden of proof?

[Darth Wong]

Cutting to the heart of the matter:

Do you have any evidence that Japan would have surrendered with merely a lower-level demonstration, or am I confusing the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is tricky in this case, because we are arguing over the outcome of a hypothetical scenario in which the existence or nonexistence of any given phenomenon is not in dispute. My point is simply that in the original history as it happened, they did surrender to a demonstration of power, so you are implicitly arguing that the demonstrations themselves were inadequate, and that the decision to surrender hinged upon the civilian casualties incurred during those attacks.

[HemlockGrey]

The burden of proof is tricky in this case, because we are arguing over the outcome of a hypothetical scenario in which the existence or nonexistence of any given phenomenon is not in dispute.

Indeed, but this does not mean a conclusion cannot be reached. There is evidence available to us that allows to analyze the situation and determine the most likely outcome had a different course been chosen.

My point is simply that in the original history as it happened, they did surrender to a demonstration of power, so you are implicitly arguing that the demonstrations themselves were inadequate, and that the decision to surrender hinged upon the civilian casualties incurred during those attacks.

My point is that the decision to surrender hinged upon the force and power of the demonstration, because it pushed the Emperor over the edge and allowed him to intervene directly; it simply happened that the destruction of a city was the only sure way to achieve that effect.

Further, you must also consider the situation from the perspective of the American leaders at the time. Ultra was decoding messages that all pointed to diehard resistance and a fight-to-the-last view. American leaders also had no real way of knowing how strong a peace faction existed in Japan, or whether it could excercise any real power. They had a limited amount of time, three bombs, a military deadline, and a growing discontent amongst the general populace, not to mention hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese.

[Darth Wong]

My point is simply that in the original history as it happened, they did surrender to a demonstration of power, so you are implicitly arguing that the demonstrations themselves were inadequate, and that the decision to surrender hinged upon the civilian casualties incurred during those attacks.

My point is that the decision to surrender hinged upon the force and power of the demonstration

Which are precisely equal, watt for watt, Newton for Newton, to the same bomb being used anywhere else. Therefore, you are agreeing that mass civilian slaughter was not necessary.

Further, you must also consider the situation from the perspective of the American leaders at the time. Ultra was decoding messages that all pointed to diehard resistance and a fight-to-the-last view. American leaders also had no real way of knowing how strong a peace faction existed in Japan, or whether it could excercise any real power. They had a limited amount of time, three bombs, a military deadline, and a growing discontent amongst the general populace, not to mention hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese.

I'm suuuuure those hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese were actually factored into their decision, rather than being an adhoc ethical rationalization for the history books.

[HemlockGrey]

Which are precisely equal, watt for watt, Newton for Newton, to the same bomb being used anywhere else. Therefore, you are agreeing that mass civilian slaughter was not necessary.

I was not speaking in scientific terms. The destruction of a town or a small offshore island would not have compelled a surrender, for the reasons above. The fact that an atomic bomb had been used was not enough to force a surrender; rather, it was the fact that atomic bombs had actually destroyed two cities that compelled the Emperor to push for surrender, and provided the impetus for him to be able to do it.

The slaughter of civilians was tragic and regrettable, but it was necessary.

I'm suuuuure those hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese were actually factored into their decision, rather than being an adhoc ethical rationalization for the history books.

Perhaps not, but they did benefit from the timely surrender of Japan.

[The Cleric]

I reiterate: Hiroshima WAS a demonstration. The only distinction between that demonstration and any other proposed demontration is the number of casualties, not the demonstration of power. And what convinced the Japanese to surrender? The number of casualties? That seems doubtful, since they'd taken more casualties from conventional bombing than from nuclear bombing, hadn't they? No, they surrendered because they knew the Allies had the A-bomb. Hiroshima demonstrated that to them. I made this point in a previous post, but it apparently went unnoticed.

Do you think that the hawkish government would have unconditionally surrendered after a demonstration where the effects of the bomb on people and infastructure was unknown? They had to blow up something, otherwise it's just a big flash.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm suuuuure those hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese were actually factored into their decision, rather than being an adhoc ethical rationalization for the history books.

They do when you want unconditional surrender, and have to occupy and rebuild the country in question. It generally helps if the whole infrastructure and populace isn't gutted.

[Darth Wong]

I'm suuuuure those hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese were actually factored into their decision, rather than being an adhoc ethical rationalization for the history books.

They do when you want unconditional surrender, and have to occupy and rebuild the country in question. It generally helps if the whole infrastructure and populace isn't gutted.

Fait accompli, I'm afraid. Or are you seriously arguing that Japan's infrastructure and populace were not "gutted" before Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Darth Wong]

Do you think that the hawkish government would have unconditionally surrendered after a demonstration where the effects of the bomb on people and infastructure was unknown?

Oh right, so if you vapourized a section of forest, they would be unable to connect the dots and figure out that a person standing in that forest would have died, right?

They had to blow up something, otherwise it's just a big flash.

Wow, you're proving your conclusion by simply stating it as a premise! What impeccable logic!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fait accompli, I'm afraid. Or are you seriously arguing that Japan's infrastructure and populace were not "gutted" before Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think the inevitable depopulation of the cities and mass starvation of millions might make things considerably worse for a post-surrender occupation, yeah.

[SirNitram]

Now, the way I understood it was that since the US had precisely three bombs(And one would be 'thrown away' at Trinity), they didn't want to expend one when it might not work at all in a demonstration. But I could be very wrong.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So because of the tyranny of the Japanese military and its total control over the information the people viewed (which made them dislike the US) justifies killing Japanese citizens wholescale just to save one US soldiers life?

YES.

Could you please justify your position on that please?

[The Kernel]

Now, the way I understood it was that since the US had precisely three bombs(And one would be 'thrown away' at Trinity), they didn't want to expend one when it might not work at all in a demonstration. But I could be very wrong.

That was true, but it had to do with an ocean blast. Aparently they were unsure that the bombs would detonate in the ocean (why they didn't think to airburst them, I don't know) which was one of the arguments against a demonstration.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So because of the tyranny of the Japanese military and its total control over the information the people viewed (which made them dislike the US) justifies killing Japanese citizens wholescale just to save one US soldiers life?

YES.

It's almost like you're asking for a VI poll.

[Darth Wong]

Fait accompli, I'm afraid. Or are you seriously arguing that Japan's infrastructure and populace were not "gutted" before Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think the inevitable depopulation of the cities and mass starvation of millions might make things considerably worse for a post-surrender occupation, yeah.

And such a large difference in outcomes is relevant to a short delay before dropping the second bomb ... how?

[HemlockGrey]

Incidentally, Vympel, I'm not sure where you got that story about the high command falling over themselves to surrender, since there is approximately zero evidence to show that the high command ever fell over itself trying to surrender.

[Sea Skimmer]

More than a couple of days. It takes a while just to get your experts to the scene in a country with no functioning infrastructure. Command and control is shot to hell, railways are fucked, etc. Then, they have to determine whether what they found was really the result of a nuclear attack (the Japanese already knew that such a thing was possible, but didn't think that the Americans were anywhere near making one).

Actually the Japanese command network was relatively intact, as was there railway system; and all US naval and air attacks where ceased during the period of the atomic bombings specifically so that they could communicate easily. Radioing "the city center was blown away by a single B-29" isn't that hard.

[Glocksman]

There was a fourth bomb that was immediately available but wasn't needed.

Oak Ridge and Hanford would have stepped up production of materials and perhaps a dozen bombs would have been available for use by the end of 1945.

If the war continued, one set of plans called for the use of half a dozen bombs on the invasion beaches. Other plans called for the use of poison gas.

An invasion of Japan would have been unspeakably horrendous in terms of casualties.

Interestingly enough, Truman later commented on his decision.

It was a question of saving hundreds of thousands of American lives. You don't feel normal when you have to plan hundreds of thousands of deaths of American boys who are alive and joking and having fun while your doing your planning. You break your heart and your head trying to figure out a way to save one life.

I made the only decision I knew how to make. I did what I thought was right. I still think that

Truman did what he had to do.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So because of the tyranny of the Japanese military and its total control over the information the people viewed (which made them dislike the US) justifies killing Japanese citizens wholescale just to save one US soldiers life?

YES.

It's almost like you're asking for a VI poll.

I think maybe he is asking for one.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And such a large difference in outcomes is relevant to a short delay before dropping the second bomb ... how?

You're not replying to the point.

You said at the beginning of this tangent:

I'm suuuuure those hundreds of thousands of starving Japanese were actually factored into their decision, rather than being an adhoc ethical rationalization for the history books.

Which I pointed out is simply not true: it is not an ad hoc rationalization but a key reason why the U.S. did not want to blockade, or invade, but drop bombs on Hiroshima to end the war as soon as possible (I conceded on Nagasaki and it is thusly a red herring to my point, and I don't know whether Hemlock was just talking about the bombing vs. invasion or the specifics of the bombings), because the U.S. would not want to shoulder millions of dead starving Japanese and depopulated industrial-commerical-population centres.

[Sea Skimmer]

There was a fourth bomb that was immediately available but wasn't needed.

Of an untested design.

Oak Ridge and Hanford would have stepped up production of materials and perhaps a dozen bombs would have been available for use by the end of 1945.

No actually the US couldn't produce any more bombs before 1946, in time for Cornet, which as you mentioned likely would have featured nuclear bombardment of the beaches. Gas was being stockpiled in the theater, but the US didn't plan on using unless Japan did first. Japan meanwhile had large stockpiles as well, and fully intended to use it against an invasion.

[Glocksman]

Yeah. It was Coronet that I was thinking of, not Olympic.

I thought the remaining bomb was a uranium 'gun' type like the Hiroshima bomb was, but I could be wrong as I'm going by memory from reading 'Code Name: Downfall' several years ago.

Thanks for the correction.

[tharkûn]

I have no idea how legit this really is, but the story has been printed a few times (NY Times was the latest I recall). Allegedly one Lt. Marcus McDilda was shot down just prior to the nuclear bombing. Under torture he "confessed" that the United States had over 100 nuclear bombs (which he knew nothing about) waiting in the wings and that Tokyo and Kyoto would soon be nuked. Supposedly this "information" was passed up the chain of command and only then was the surrender possible.

Frankly as a matter of opinion I don't see how a nuclear bomb would have been an effective persuasion tool if you say just blew a forest. The Japanese High Command had already witnessed hundreds of thousands people die in firebombing (vastly more lethal than the nukes) and didn't offer to surrender then. Nor is there any evidence of a surrender decision after the first bombing (although I do recall a few things about Japanese speculation that we had only one such bomb).

It is a lousy decision no matter how you go at it. If you beleive that a "live" demonstration would even effect the Japanese decision to surrender by say 10% over a simple show of force then it is worth it to go for that extra 10% even at the cost of a hundred thousand lives.

[The Yosemite Bear]

what your forgetting is that we were sending over large groups of bombers, lone bombers were thought to be recon/weather planes and "nothing of value". That one plane could cause the destruction of many, was the shock.

After all what would a typical B-29 flight over with nukes have looked like....