In retrospect, should we have nuked the Japanese

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
I am honestly concerned with the lack of knowledge about this subject posted so far...

The massed army and pending battle is only a part of why the U.S. Nuked. I know that in the 80's, I wasn't told this in School but Japan began to use a very ingenious method to deliver bombs that in the beginning wasn't very productive but it proved it could be done. Not only did Japan attack Perl Harbor, they also attached bombs to balloons and placed the balloons into the Jetstream. That jetstream carried the balloons to the U.S. and dropped their payload mostly over the mid west in unpopulated areas as they learned how to time the release. As they continued, they became more and more accurate and Japan planned on using Chemical and Biological Warfare with the balloons delivering the payload.

The list of why we nuked are many but the 3 key ones are:

1. Pending LARGE battle.
2. inevitable Chem/bio attack
3. Not wanting to prolong war

Umm, you sure about that? I know the Japanese were experimenting with biological weapons delivered via balloon, and they flew as far east as Chicago I believe, but they were far from accurate and there was only one US casualty as a result. Launching balloons into the jetstream would have never been a viable bombing tactic except for the delivery of biological weapons (I believe they were using insects as a means of spreading it, a sort of bug bomb).
 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
I am honestly concerned with the lack of knowledge about this subject posted so far...

The massed army and pending battle is only a part of why the U.S. Nuked. I know that in the 80's, I wasn't told this in School but Japan began to use a very ingenious method to deliver bombs that in the beginning wasn't very productive but it proved it could be done. Not only did Japan attack Perl Harbor, they also attached bombs to balloons and placed the balloons into the Jetstream. That jetstream carried the balloons to the U.S. and dropped their payload mostly over the mid west in unpopulated areas as they learned how to time the release. As they continued, they became more and more accurate and Japan planned on using Chemical and Biological Warfare with the balloons delivering the payload.

The list of why we nuked are many but the 3 key ones are:

1. Pending LARGE battle.
2. inevitable Chem/bio attack
3. Not wanting to prolong war

Umm, you sure about that? I know the Japanese were experimenting with biological weapons delivered via balloon, and they flew as far east as Chicago I believe, but they were far from accurate and there was only one US casualty as a result. Launching balloons into the jetstream would have never been a viable bombing tactic except for the delivery of biological weapons (I believe they were using insects as a means of spreading it, a sort of bug bomb).

Thats what the poster said.
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?

It is actually a correct answer. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a third city (I forgot which one) were "spared" so that the effects of an atomic bomb could be studied; the decision not to bomb them was taken jointly by the science advisor,the military and General Groves (who was in charge of the Manhattan project) early in the war (if I remember correctly a list of potiential targets was written early in 1943). Hiroshima (and later Nagasaki) was choosen because the sky over the city was clear the day of the attack, making it easier to study the effects of the bomb.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,121
126
Absolutely not. We should have formed an alliance with them and taken over the world and ended the horror of the 60 year communist threat.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,273
33,549
136
Originally posted by: f95toli
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Why didn't we nuke their massed army on the southern islands? We were about to fight the bloodiest battle ever, we had to do something or risk 10s or 100s of thousands of casualities on both sides. I repeat my question though, why did we NOT nuke the massed japanese army on the southern islands?

[tinfoilhot]because hiroshima and nagasaki were mostly untouched by bombing campaigns and made good test sites so the real effects could be seen and analyzed[/tinfoilhat]

HUH????

That is your answer to the mans simple and honest question?

It is actually a correct answer. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a third city (I forgot which one) were "spared" so that the effects of an atomic bomb could be studied; the decision not to bomb them was taken jointly by the science advisor,the military and General Groves (who was in charge of the Manhattan project) early in the war (if I remember correctly a list of potiential targets was written early in 1943). Hiroshima (and later Nagasaki) was choosen because the sky over the city was clear the day of the attack, making it easier to study the effects of the bomb.

Kyoto
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,418
8,369
126
nagasaki was actually a couple targets down the list for that day. the primary had cloud cover over it, and the bombadier on box car couldn't ensure that was the target.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,273
33,549
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
nagasaki was actually a couple targets down the list for that day. the primary had cloud cover over it, and the bombadier on box car couldn't ensure that was the target.

Kokura, and the B-29 was Bock's Car.
 

Alex

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 1999
6,995
0
0
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Skoorb
yes, same reason everybody else here will give and has given in the past in a million messages on the same topic on a million message boards





:thumbsup:

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is the Japanese way to kill your enemy and everyone in his family. We were just following the japanese customs. The japanese brutally treated women and children in captive far worse than anything we can imagine.

Also when Japan invaded China they fed candy laced with opium to children. The Japanese would steal all the crops, chop down all the trees and pillage and rape the countryside till there was nothing left worth taking. They did the same thing in South Korea as well.

Lest you forget the Japanese were ruthless animals out to take over the world just like hitler only worse.
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052

Kyoto

No, Kyoto was never on the final list. Groves had Kyoto as #1 but Stimson refused and simply removed it from the list.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,273
33,549
136
Originally posted by: f95toli
Originally posted by: K1052

Kyoto

No, Kyoto was never on the final list. Groves had Kyoto as #1 but Stimson refused and simply removed it from the list.

Niigata maybe, Yokohama was also in the running IIRC.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
i think it was ok to use nukes as japan clearly was not going to surrender. however, would it have been better to use them first in a sparsely populated area of japan first, and then if the japanese still didnt get the message, nuke hiroshima and nagasaki? all hindsight of course...