What would have been a better alternative to dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan?
- Thread starter brainhulk
- Start date
squirrel dog
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 5,564
- 48
- 91
at that point in time Japan was working on its own abomb . We intercepted a German uboat with a cargo of uranium headed for Japan . Germany had already made the V10 rocket capable of hitting New York/DC and was developing its own heavy water program when we closed in on Berlin . Estimated US casualties for an invasion of Japan was over one million .
waffleironhead
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2005
- 7,047
- 551
- 136
Collect up all the bleeding hearts who say we never should have bombed them. Then go back in time and drop them in japan. Maybe they can hug it out?
As someone else said, there was 2 Atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.
Having read some history books, it looks like many lives were saved by
this horrible action. Too bad wars happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
I think that when you look at the history ever since, it was most likely a good idea that prevented future wars from ever happening.
Without such a demonstration on a place that cannot really retaliate, there's a good chance the cold war would have turned into a really hot one including multiple proxy nations, giving us a real life Fallout world...
Without such a demonstration on a place that cannot really retaliate, there's a good chance the cold war would have turned into a really hot one including multiple proxy nations, giving us a real life Fallout world...
DesiPower
Lifer
- Nov 22, 2008
- 15,299
- 740
- 126
US didn't want to make the same mistake Japan made by stopping at just pearl harbor
balloonshark
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2008
- 7,035
- 3,518
- 136
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Don't you just love history revisionists? "There had to be a better way. Japan was no threat. They're Navy was destroyed and their people no longer wanted to fight. The bomb was not a good idea." blah, blah, blah.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,997
- 126
True.
The first was a no-brainer. Anything was better than an invasion of Japan, that would have been a bloodbath for both sides. Like it or not, the a-bomb saved lives and was the least of all evils at that point.
It's hard to view the 2nd one as anything other than a show. After Hiroshima a more prudent course would have been to issue an ultimatum like "We have more bombs, you have one week to unconditionally surrender or we wipe out a second city." That would have cost the USA nothing. Japan couldn't rebuild, couldn't launch an attack on us, couldn't do anything except hold meetings to decide on whether to capitulate or hope we were bluffing and call it. Given the state of Japan at that time doing Nagasaki so soon after Hiroshima looks like nothing more than a attempt to do it BEFORE Japan could surrender. We wanted to use that bomb to prove to the world that the first one wasn't a fluke, that we had not shot our entire wad over Hiroshima and to demonstrate that we could rain those things down until out enemies were smoking piles of rubble.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
weird. people saying the 2nd wasn't needed?
From what i remember. Even after the 1st bomb Japan wouldn't surrender. With the USSR declaring war and attacking japan and the 2nd bomb Japan finally surrendered.
was it needed? well japan didn't surrender. so who is to say? you can sit back and say it was all for show. But in reality Japan was still willing to fight.
Frankly i would rather send in a 2nd bomb then send in more US military to die.
From what i remember. Even after the 1st bomb Japan wouldn't surrender. With the USSR declaring war and attacking japan and the 2nd bomb Japan finally surrendered.
was it needed? well japan didn't surrender. so who is to say? you can sit back and say it was all for show. But in reality Japan was still willing to fight.
Frankly i would rather send in a 2nd bomb then send in more US military to die.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,997
- 126
Do you make room for the possibility that Japan did not surrender because we didn't give then enough time? Do you think an entire country can surrender in a day or two? It was a place in chaos with poor communications and a power structure in shambles.
What would have been the downside of issuing an ultimatum and waiting a week for Japan to sort things out? Nobody knows whether or not the 2nd bomb was really necessary and nobody knows whether Japan would have surrendered after the first one alone. So why the rush to use it so quickly? There was no danger in waiting a few more days, there was however an upside to flexing our muscles a little to warn the world not to fuck with us.
I'm no historian but according to a documentary i just watched the other day Japan refused to surrender unconditionally after the 1st bomb. It took the 2nd & Russia declaring war on them that finally did it.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
I remember talking about this in high school and college (lol like 20 years ago).
Yes i feel Japan had time to surrender after the first bomb. they didn't. So the US dropped the 2nd.
Jesus Just thinking about the numbers dead between Russia and Japan in a ground war in Japan. It would have been fucking brutal.
Japan was already losing a land war to the Soviets. Why do you think the USA didn't have any terms concerning a Japanese version of the Nuremberg trials, why the emperor was allowed to stay put, and why they didn't just demand surrender before dropping the bombs or after the first one? With 2 bombs the emperor could 'surrender' without losing face (claiming it was to safe more lives), and the US could prevent Stalin taking control of Japan.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,553
- 942
- 126
The "V10" rocket was actually the "A10" 2-stage rocket that never flew, it's booster stage was tested but that's about as far as it got, given more time though I'm sure WVB would have succeeded. Roosevelt was warned of the Nazi program to build an atomic bomb by none other than Einstein himself and TR took it seriously. After Germany invaded Norway they began using The Vemork Hydroelectric Plant to make heavy water, through sabotage and strategic bombing it was put out of commission in '43. You are correct about the Uboat, U234 was a type 9 boat (the bigger version with much greater range than the type 7 that was the mainstay of sub production throughout the war) loaded with uranium and scientific data along with a complete Me-262 (disassembled of course) and set out for Japan. After surviving several attempts to sink her, (a Uboat was not safe anywhere in '45, Allied radar had advanced enough that even a snorkel could be detected) her captain decided to surrender her to the US and she was brought to Portsmouth NH where the uranium was quickly used by those working on the "Manhattan project" where it was eventually used to help make the 2 bombs that hit Japan. Talk about irony!. Yes, using an atom bomb is brutal but to invade Japan would have come at a enormous loss of both Japanese and American lives plus you have to remember that Japan was a very brutal bunch those days as well. Just ask any of the few survivors of the Bataan Death March or the atrocities committed against the Chinese and Philippine people and that little thing called Pearl Harbor.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,982
- 14,373
- 146
norseamd
Lifer
- Dec 13, 2013
- 13,990
- 180
- 106
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter