3rd option with Hiroshima

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whether or not the A Bomb should have been used –option 1 no it shouldn’t it was a war crime-option 2 it brought a swift end to the war in the pacific and ultimately saved lives. But there was a third option which seems obvious...Why didn’t the US army summon the Japanese high command to observe some remote uninhabited are or maybe some few miles off Tokyo Harbour and say “Behold our power” and then ensue a near zero casualty, overwhelming demonstration of the A Bomb ? They could have dropped twelve of them just to be convincing!
O well if someone had this obvious thought 75 years ago...unless of course they wanted to see the effect of nuclear abomination on human populous...

a reply to: washy76

You point is moot. We dropped one on an actual city and it didn't scare them enough to surrender. We warned them another was going to be dropped. They still didn't surrender. We then dropped the second one and they still weren't going to surrender. The Emperor made the decision to surrender much to the dismay of the military leadership.

originally posted by: washy76
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whether or not the A Bomb should have been used –option 1 no it shouldn’t it was a war crime-option 2 it brought a swift end to the war in the pacific and ultimately saved lives. But there was a third option which seems obvious...Why didn’t the US army summon the Japanese high command to observe some remote uninhabited are or maybe some few miles off Tokyo Harbour and say “Behold our power” and then ensue a near zero casualty, overwhelming demonstration of the A Bomb ? They could have dropped twelve of them just to be convincing!
O well if someone had this obvious thought 75 years ago...unless of course they wanted to see the effect of nuclear abomination on human populous...

Drop it. Retribution for sneak attacking us. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

a reply to: washy76

The bombs where dropped on August 6th & 9th. Japan surrendered on August 15th,

Why do you think Japan would have surrendered after seeing a demonstration of the bomb? It took them 6days to surrender after the second bomb was dropped.

a reply to: washy76

It also served the purpose of demonstrating to Stalin what we were now capable of.

More people died of the firebombing than the nukes. They didn't surrender then. We also didn't have thousands of nukes like today either. Have to use what we had wisely.

a reply to: washy76
One must understand the mindset of Japanese soldiers in WW2. They actually believed their emperor was a god and ultimately believed in the code of Bushido. They had many, many opportunities to surrender with the unassailable might of the American forces, yet still chose to die (in Banzai charges and last ditch defences).
And this was all on territory that they had taken. So the massive loss of life that WOULD have happened if the US was to invade the home islands was a very real outcome to terrible to allow to happen.
So it was a couple of atomic bombs, if you have the tools, use them. Because if the boot was on the other foot the Japanese would have definitely used them.

a reply to: washy76

Good point, however we couldn't have dropped 20 A bombs for demonstration purposes because we didn't have that many and the amount we had and could make within a certain period of time was very limited.

Many hard calls had to be made WWII. We bombed the French railroads to stop the Germans. They knew it would kill like 30K innocent people. Had to be done.

The bombs didn’t actually make them surrender. They were going to surrender anyway.

The atomic bombings were a show of force to the USSR more than anything else. You don’t need to drop 12 for that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: washy76

It also served the purpose of demonstrating to Stalin what we were now capable of.

And also served to deter the Soviets from attacking Japan from the North. We didn't want to share and split up occupation of Japan the way we did in Eastern Europe and Germany with the Soviets. People also forget that much like the Enigma machines, we had decoded Japan's Purple coding machines in 1939 and knew what was going on behind the scenes, including Japan's internal dialogues on surrender options in addition to back door diplomats trying to obtain favorable surrender terms for Japan from the US for months before the bombs were dropped. It was a show of force to the world, especially the Soviets, of what we could now do to our enemies if we chose to and not to stop an invasion of Japan itself.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: washy76

It also served the purpose of demonstrating to Stalin what we were now capable of.

That's arguably the main purpose it served.

Putting the time line of when they surrendered aside, we knew they were brokering their surrender with Russia via intercepted cables.

originally posted by: washy76
But there was a third option which seems obvious...Why didn’t the US army summon the Japanese high command to observe some remote uninhabited are or maybe some few miles off Tokyo Harbour and say “Behold our power” and then ensue a near zero casualty, overwhelming demonstration of the A Bomb ? They could have dropped twelve of them just to be convincing!
O well if someone had this obvious thought 75 years ago...unless of course they wanted to see the effect of nuclear abomination on human populous...

Well first we only had 2.... Second we were dealing with a God Emperor and we had to bring a God to his knees... The fire bombings were actually worst than the A bombs just for perspective. And for a second perspective everyone on both sides bombed civilian centers, so I guess all countries committed war crimes in this nature.

a reply to: washy76

Because a "demonstration" would have done nothing to encourage a surrender. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It would have been viewed by the military as cowardice on the part of the Allies.

The firebombing of numerous cities causing hundreds of thousands, even millions of casualties didn't do it, what the Hell makes you think an atom bomb a few miles off shore would have done anything...??

Up until the Emperor ordered them to stand down, the Japanese military, and many civilians, were willing to, and preparing to, fight to the death.

The bombs were used to force a surrender, which nearly didn't work... They were also used to demonstrate to our "frenemies", the Soviet Union, what we had, and they didn't... Though in hindsight the fact that the Manhattan Project was so riddled with spies it's kinda surprising the Sovs didn't beat 'em to the bomb...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Just curious, who defines what a "war crime" even is??

originally posted by: seagull

Just curious, who defines what a "war crime" even is??

The winner....

originally posted by: peter vlar

And also served to deter the Soviets from attacking Japan from the North. We didn't want to share and split up occupation of Japan the way we did in Eastern Europe and Germany with the Soviets. People also forget that much like the Enigma machines, we had decoded Japan's Purple coding machines in 1939 and knew what was going on behind the scenes, including Japan's internal dialogues on surrender options in addition to back door diplomats trying to obtain favorable surrender terms for Japan from the US for months before the bombs were dropped. It was a show of force to the world, especially the Soviets, of what we could now do to our enemies if we chose to and not to stop an invasion of Japan itself.

Unconditional surrender is a very strong thing... Maybe the 2 bombs were the icing on the cake of months of Japan trying to get a conditional surrender which the way they fought there was zero interests to have anything short of them on their knees.

BTW it ended up being a great thing for them in the end... It ended many bad social structures and brought them into a new era like women suffrage...Funny today Japanese women are much stronger then the men now.

a reply to: peter vlar

Very solid points.

a reply to: washy76

often times common sense doesn't work on humans, we are illogical emotional creatures that do crazy things, the Japanese leadership and military had too much pride to give up, they were willing to keep fighting as long as we kept coming. so while your idea seems logical you gotta remember how prideful, idealistic and stubborn that generation was, we are very different nowadays in many ways.

originally posted by: washy76
Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whether or not the A Bomb should have been used –option 1 no it shouldn’t it was a war crime-option 2 it brought a swift end to the war in the pacific and ultimately saved lives. But there was a third option which seems obvious...Why didn’t the US army summon the Japanese high command to observe some remote uninhabited are or maybe some few miles off Tokyo Harbour and say “Behold our power” and then ensue a near zero casualty, overwhelming demonstration of the A Bomb ? They could have dropped twelve of them just to be convincing!
O well if someone had this obvious thought 75 years ago...unless of course they wanted to see the effect of nuclear abomination on human populous...

Someone did have that obvious thought 75 years ago. A group at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Lab (where the first nuclear reactor was built and operated) headed by the Nobel-prize-winning physicist James Franck put forward the idea of doing a demonstration through official channels to the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. Stimson asked his panel of scientific advisers (Arthur Compton, Enrico Fermi, Ernest Lawrence, Edward Teller) for their opinion. They concluded: ... "as we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.”

carnegieendowment.org...