Originally posted by COOL HAND
Absolutely. The Japanese people were willing to fight on without the use of them even in the face of an invasion of the home islands. The use of the
atomic bombs showed Japan what they had in store for them if the continued to fight.
And I ask again.. why was it necessary to invade the home islands instead of blockading them?
Whoa, what? The initial casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were not even done until after Okinawa. Everything prior to that was not even
close to realistic.
Now that's just plain wrong.. The plans for invading home islands (X, Y and Z Day) were prepared much before the Okinawa invasion.
And the very reason that everything prior to Okinawa was not realistic was because Okinawa was a shocker.. That does not extrapolate to having
unrealistic estimates before Okinawa.
Since Japanese industries were spread throughout the cities, yes.
So the bombing was intended to kill the Japanese war machine? But wasn't it already being killed by unrestricted conventional bombing achieved during
air supremacy? Looking a little pale there that argument.. genocidal even..
Japan ignored the pamphlets that were dropped before the first bomb, so my guess would be no. They started paying attention after the first one was
dropped and this led to a mass exodus from the cities that were named as potential targets on the pamphlets.
The question remains.. Would a demonstration have sufficed? The answer is maybe yes, maybe no.. was there any harming in trying before attacking a
Was there a fear that the Japanese would devise a magical means of protecting their cities/industries from nuclear weapons damage?
What is the fundamental element of surprise that was achieved by using this weapon in such a horrendous manner?
None whatsoever except to send a message to foes-to-be..
No, that was proposed by a historian years ago with no proof to back up that claim. If that were the case we would have read about it in the Truman
documents. Look into what his library has on file for the decision to use the bomb in the first place.
I did look at it and it seems to revolve around a message to garner public opinion to support WMD usage on civilian targets..
There is no military advantage as opposed to a demonstration with an option to use on live targets open as a subsequent step..
If there is.. find it and show it to me..
No, because the Japanese forces there were already cut off from the home islands. Defeating them would not have changed a thing.
Cut off? As in no means for repatriation and organised retreat? You sure about that? This was the only sizable army left to the Japanese and
Was it necessary to use 2 bombs?
Since they ignored the first one, yes. There were plans already in the works to drop even more as soon as they arrived to Tinian.
Oh isnt that absolutely charming.. lets drop some more..
Yes, and a test of the damage that those weapons could cause. The targetting decision for the cities took into account how often they had been
attacked. The US wanted to get an idea of how much damage this weapon could do and needed the least damaged cities to do so.
Yes of course.. a live test on live targets is essential.. We should carry some out with the multi megaton yield ones we have these days..
Truman had already announced the existence of the bomb to Stalin before they were used, so I don't think it would have affected the Cold War.
The question was about the usage.. not the existence..
The usage has resulted in a situation where the former soviet republics have a stockpile and yield total that is much larger than that in the US.
I most definitely think that the information in addition to joint ops in China would have postponed or even stopped the cold war from happening.