When We Dropped The Atomic Bombs…..

[StoneTheCrow]

(07-24-2023, 12:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Not sure if anyone was paying attention to the Barbenheimer cinema weekend.

Saw Oppenheimer over the weekend and thought of this thread. I thought it was an amazing film. Did not feel its 3 hr runtime at all.

I saw it yesterday and will most definitely be seeing it in theater again.

[KillerGoose]

(04-13-2023, 10:23 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: There are some theories that the U.S. dropped the bombs partially due to the Soviet Union, yes. The two countries didn't trust each other. However, that isn't the primary reason. The Japanese knew that the war was lost and were struggling internally on how to deal with this. The country was destroyed and starving. There were individuals in the government that wanted to fight until the last man and there were individuals who wanted to surrender. The Japanese contacted the Allies to negotiate a truce but the Allies would only accept complete, unconditional surrender. This didn't sit well with the Japanese as they wanted Emperor Hirohito to stay in power. This was at a time where many people worshipped the Emperor, and he was likely to be tried for war crimes and executed if he was removed from power. 

The United States wanted to use these new bombs and end the war as quickly as possible. The most common fact you'll hear quoted about the decision to drop the bombs is one about the number of Purple Hearts manufactured in preparation for a mainland invasion of Japan. Since the invasion never happened, these Purple Hearts were put into a stockpile and we still have not gone through that stockpile. So, all of the injured in the Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan/Iraq were still not enough to exhaust that supply. The casualty estimates were in the millions. A struggle that U.S. leaders faced was related to the bombs themselves - they had these immensely powerful bombs that could maybe end the war quickly. If they didn't use them and millions of people died fighting the war further, how would that be received? The opportunity was there. It was believed that the Japanese would fight to the last man, and there were some in the Japanese government who were certainly ready to do so.

Regarding the Soviets, it has been argued that the U.S. also dropped the bombs to display the immense power and destruction they can cause. I've seen people argue that this is a major reason why no more atomic bombs have been dropped to this day. If the U.S. didn't drop them, would the Soviets have dropped them on another country? There's no way to know but it is a possibility. 

I just finished reading a book on this subject and wanted to come in and modify a few things here, as I thought it was interesting. In this post, I referenced a casualty estimate of "millions". What I learned after reading Prompt & Utter Destruction is that this is not quite true. To start, the goal was certainly to end the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of American lives lost. That was Truman's #1 goal. It is also true that there were those who believed that an invasion would end up being the best way to achieve that goal. In order to make a more informed decision, Truman asked for casualty estimates of an invasion. Now, there are two bits of information here - what Truman was told, and what the Joint Chief's actually estimated. In the summer of 1945, Truman was only given one, single, casualty estimate for a mainland invasion. That estimate was "...no more than 31,000 in the first 30 days." This is a bit...vague. That is intentional. Remember that Truman's goal was to end the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of American lives lost. There was concern that if the Joint Chiefs disclosed their full casualty estimates, it would undermine his support for an invasion. The real casualty estimates, in terms of American forces, were around 220k total. Both MacArthur and another Joint Chief calculated a very similar figure, ranging between 170k-220k. This includes dead, wounded, and missing. Also, Truman never actually made the decision to drop them. There was never a question posed to Truman about whether the bombs should be used nor did he ever give an order to drop them. The dropping of the atomic bombs was in part an assumption on all sides. It was assumed that after several years of development and massive amounts of money that they would be used when they were ready. No one questioned this. The only direct decision that Truman ever made was an order to not drop any more nuclear bombs after Nagasaki was hit. The idea of killing "so many kids" deeply disturbed him.

There were also alternatives floated. It wasn't a binary choice of invasion or nuke. Here are the alternatives that were floated...

1. Finish the war in the air with continued bombing campaigns.
2. Stall until the Soviets entered the war in hopes that a Soviet declaration would induce surrender.
3. Use the bomb, but as a demonstration only. 
4. Modify the surrender terms to allow the Emperor to stay in power.
   

I'll start with #4, as that is the one that sticks out the most. One big sticking point, as I pointed out in my original post, was that the U.S. was insisting on unconditional surrender. The Japanese were concerned that this would mean the stripping of power of Hirohito and that he would be tried for war crimes. So, the idea of a modification of surrender terms was proposed, but there were concerns. The Japanese leadership had modified their strategy to making the war as grueling and grinding as they could. They didn't believe, at that point, that they were going to win. However, they did believe that they could generate more acceptable terms for their surrender. The belief was that if the U.S. reached out with a modified proposal, it was going to be evidence that the strategy was working and they could potentially hold out even longer to get more favorable terms. It could be perceived as a sign of weakness and desperation. 

The rest of the alternatives were considered, but they all met the same conclusion - they wouldn't end the war fast enough. Alternative #1 was partly political in motive, as the air force at the time was a part of the Army and they wanted to be their own separate branch. They believed that if they could end the war by bombing campaigns, it would demonstrate they were a force powerful enough to be their own branch. Nonetheless, they were all rejected as soon as the Trinity test was successful.

I thought the book answered a very popular question quite well.

Was it necessary to drop the nuclear bombs?


Yes and no. Yes, it was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment with minimal American lives lost. No, it was not necessary to end the war. 

[StoneTheCrow]

Just wanted to throw it out there, I just finished Dan Carlin’s Hardore History: Destroyer of World’s podcast and recommend it. Here’s a link to the pod with a brief synopsis if there’s any interest.

https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/

[KillerGoose]

(08-12-2023, 02:16 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Just wanted to throw it out there, I just finished Dan Carlin’s Hardore History: Destroyer of World’s podcast and recommend it. Here’s a link to the pod with a brief synopsis if there’s any interest.

https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/

This is great, thanks for posting. 

[CKwi88]

(08-12-2023, 12:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I thought the book answered a very popular question quite well.

Was it necessary to drop the nuclear bombs?


Yes and no. Yes, it was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment with minimal American lives lost. No, it was not necessary to end the war. 

And from that conclusion stems a particularly difficult question: Now knowing all the ramifications, was it worth it?

I personally believe that dropping the bombs was wrong. However, I recognize that I make that assertion benefitting from now knowing the exact consequences and the trajectory that it sent our species on. One that I believe will result in the eventual extinction of our species. An important distinction that I try to make when arguing against the use of the bombs is that it is possible to recognize and accept that it was the wrong decision, and by just about any definition among the worst of war crimes ever committed, without outright condemning the decision. We simply had power that we were then unable to comprehend.

 The victor gets to rewrite history however. Instead of using that to spin narratives that the use of the bomb was entirely necessary and the "right" thing to do, I would prefer that it be used to recognize errors, educate and ensure that such a catastrophe is never seen again. 

I won't hold my breath.

[grampahol]

Something left out is the Soviet Union at the time was about to enter the war with Japan as well. Japanese already had a big beef with the Soviets so better to take their chances with the Americans than the communists. Think about the ramifications if the Soviets had taken control of Japan and all of Korea as well as China. They surrendered to US forces instead. Communists won in China, but eventually were stopped in Korea a few years later. Otherwise the balance of power would have been quite different.. 

[KillerGoose]

(08-17-2023, 07:39 PM)grampahol Wrote: Something left out is the Soviet Union at the time was about to enter the war with Japan as well. Japanese already had a big beef with the Soviets so better to take their chances with the Americans than the communists. Think about the ramifications if the Soviets had taken control of Japan and all of Korea as well as China. They surrendered to US forces instead. Communists won in China, but eventually were stopped in Korea a few years later. Otherwise the balance of power would have been quite different.. 

The Soviets had already entered the war, after the first bomb. They actually entered early. Truman had secured an agreement for them to enter the war on August 15th. However, once they received news of the atomic bombs, they invaded Manchuria early. 

I wouldn't say that Japan had beef with the Soviet Union. They were neutral. In fact, the Japanese had put out feelers to the Soviet Union in an attempt to hopefully use them as an intermediary to negotiate a more favorable peace package. Hell, there was a couple of naïve minds that believed the Soviets could be talked into defending the mainland from the Americans, though there was never a chance of that. Point being, they didn't have any major beef from their perspective. Once the bomb was dropped and the Soviets invaded Manchuria, it was a very grim day for Japanese leadership. Those two events were the largest contributors to the timing of the Japanese surrender. The second bomb didn't have as big of an influence. There were some in the war cabinet that believed the United States was bluffing and that they only had one bomb, so when a second was dropped it was just the realization that the U.S. did, indeed, have multiple. Of course, that was all that they had, but Japan didn't know that. 

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Brad,

There are two books I think you would like given the subject of this thread. The first is The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes and the second is called The First War of Physics by Jim Baggott. Both are outstanding accounts of the Manhattan Project.

Giancarlo