July 16, 1945

Trebuchet · 2005-08-12 06:24:15

Actually, Cobra, Palomar would have gotten his wish. If the Japanese didn't surrender after the third nuke, the campaign of strategic nuclear bombing was going to be called off, and the land invasion would go forth as scheduled. That did not mean that the nuclear bombs coming on-line wouldn't be used, though: they would be made available for tactical use against any large formations of Japanese troops.

The logic, in case Cobra decides to call that an indefensible approach, was that if three cities vanishing into a bright light and sudden noise with the threat of more was insufficient to crush the Japanese will to fight, nothing along those lines would, so you might as well save the bombs for a useful purpose.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-12 06:39:20

If the Japanese didn't surrender after the third nuke, the campaign of strategic nuclear bombing was going to be called off, and the land invasion would go forth as scheduled. That did not mean that the nuclear bombs coming on-line wouldn't be used, though: they would be made available for tactical use against any large formations of Japanese troops.

An invasion with tactical nuclear support is a very different operation than originally planned.

If I'm not mistaken I think Cindy was suggesting that further use of nuclear weapons would be halted while we went ahead with the planned invasion. I can't see that happening. Some sort of land invasion definately (which in a sense we did anyway, can't occupy without troops on the ground) but not an end to the dropping of atomic bombs.

Palomar · 2005-08-12 09:11:10

If I'm not mistaken I think Cindy was suggesting that further use of nuclear weapons would be halted while we went ahead with the planned invasion.

*Yep, that's what I meant.

I can't see that happening. Some sort of land invasion definately (which in a sense we did anyway, can't occupy without troops on the ground) but not an end to the dropping of atomic bombs.

But how could a land invasion be orchestrated alongside of continued A-bomb drops? Of course the A-bombs could/would be detonated away from where most troops are currently positioned (as if I know anything about military tactics, ha ha...just trying to be logical here), but there'd still be the issues of wind-borne fallout and Japan's land mass is small, etc.

Just thought I'd ask.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-12 09:34:16

But how could a land invasion be orchestrated alongside of continued A-bomb drops? Of course the A-bombs could/would be detonated away from where most troops are currently positioned (as if I know anything about military tactics, ha ha...just trying to be logical here), but there'd still be the issues of wind-borne fallout and Japan's land mass is small, etc.

It would simply be a matter of a shift in approach. Instead of bombing cities to achieve a strategic goal we'd have started bombing military targets to achieve tactical goals. Most likely it would have involved nuking prepared defenses and troop formations then moving in to the gap. Advancing across a freshly nuked field isn't healthy, but it's also not as perilous as often assumed. Particularly if you wait a day or two, most of that stuff dies down fast.

In fact, during the 1950's the US had a few atomic artillery pieces meant for battlefield use. The Soviets had similar tactical nuclear weapons, though generally in the form of missiles. I've even seen footage of a Chinese nuclear test/training exercise wherein horse mounted cavalry charged toward the still-rising mushroom cloud in a new twist on old cavalry tactics.

Fallout wouldn't be a showstopping factor.

Palomar · 2005-08-12 09:57:20

I've even seen footage of a Chinese nuclear test/training exercise wherein horse mounted cavalry charged toward the still-rising mushroom cloud in a new twist on old cavalry tactics.

*That's inconceivable to me. Really am at a loss for words. I might have seen that clip, but perhaps I've only just now seen this in my mind's eye.

If humans should ever become UNafraid of and conditioned to nuclear warheads -- blooming mushroom clouds as they're actually blooming -- we're doomed.

To -charge at- a mushroom cloud? That's insane. Purely insane.

During the Pakistan/India crisis a few years ago, when it was feared they'd go to nukes, one Pakistani man was quoted as saying he'd even welcome a nuclear exchange; after all, hadn't Japan benefitted from H & N? It had become a wealthy, industrialized, cutting-edge nation after the A-bombings.

I was flummoxed to read that man's comments, truly stunned.

To actually -want- nuclear war? Was that man speaking out of sheer ignorance, i.e. having never seen video of the fallout, devastation and destruction? Having never read/heard survivors' stories? The folks in Nagasaki and Hiroshima don't want it to ever happen again (anywhere). And what makes him think India would help Pakistan back up onto its feet like the U.S. helped Japan afterwards?

::shakes head::

Sorry, didn't mean to go off on a tangent. We must never get used to nuclear war nor desire it. It's not something to be embraced.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-12 10:14:01

We must never get used to nuclear war nor desire it. It's not something to be embraced.

The same can surely be said of war in general.

It seems to me that there are two big primary "ideas" about nuclear weapons out there, both of which are wrong. First, with the way third world nuclear powers bluster around and the terms they use when referring to those weapons gives the impression that they think a nuke is just a really big bomb, at least from a policy standpoint. "Giant explosion, people dead, we win." This is of course missing some important details.

On the other hand, most of the Western population has erroneous ideas of their own. The belief that nuclear explosions vaporize everything within a given radius, make land unuseable for hundreds of years, kill everyone for miles with radiation and other such things. It just isn't true.

Reality is between the two extremes. Nuclear weapons aren't something to be cavalierly bandied about but they won't destroy the world and kill off all humanity if ever another one is used either. A nuclear war is survivable, even winnable. But thoroughly unpleasant and to be avoided.

But seriously, I'm thinking positive here. We're not doomed.

Trebuchet · 2005-08-12 17:01:00

To clarify my earlier post, the US would have only used nuclear bombs after the third one if they noticed a large concentration of Japanese troops and could hustle the bomb to them before they dispersed. Otherwise, the weapons were going to be reserved.

Trebuchet · 2005-08-12 21:37:14

One last note about the firebombing of Japanese cities, etc: Curtis LeMay, who was responsible for the general bombing campaign against Japan, requested and got leaflets printed up which said the following:

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, four or more of the cities named on the reverse side of this leaflet will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes . So, in accordance with America's well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

The US aversion to causing random civilian casualties predates laser guided bombs.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-12 22:41:15

What an interesting thread this is!
Thanks to all involved; especially Trebuchet, whose detailed reporting of events back in those days is fascinating. Much of it is news to me, so I'm getting an education as well as entertainment.

Palomar · 2005-08-13 09:12:25

One last note about the firebombing of Japanese cities, etc: Curtis LeMay, who was responsible for the general bombing campaign against Japan, requested and got leaflets printed up which said the following:
Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, four or more of the cities named on the reverse side of this leaflet will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes . So, in accordance with America's well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
The US aversion to causing random civilian casualties predates laser guided bombs.

*Thanks much for posting that, Trebuchet. I'd not known of this.

--Cindy

Mark Friedenbach · 2005-08-18 14:24:00

I'm a little late, but...

As for nukes - there actually was a third bomb en route to Tinian in case Japan didn't surrender after the second shot.
<Jogs memory> Ah yes, the "third bomb" or rather components that were arriving for it. If I recall correctly they had all the parts but the plutonium core (a Fat Man bomb) which was projected to be delivered a few days after Nagasaki.

A few weeks. Perhaps a month or longer. There were only three bombs by the end of the war: one fell in New Mexico, the other two in Japan. The fourth would have made its way to Sapporo eventually if the Japanese called the bluff (late August at the earliest), but that would have included the last of our Plutonium reserves. Another bomb would have been months away. At that point it'd be back to the conventional invasion. Sapporo replaced Kokura as the next target because it was felt bombing it would have a larger impact on the leadership.

Now to add a little bit of history to what Trebuchet said and this gloomy conversation: the Nagasaki bomb detonated above the Urakami suburbs when it missed its target by a little bit. Nagasaki was a centerpoint for christians after missionaries introduced the religion to Japan in the 16th century, and the Urakami Cathedral was the largest cathedral in East Asia. After the atomic blast, one wall stood alone amid the rubble of ground zero:

(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nag … age2.shtml)

The cathedral was rebuilt in the 1950's, although part of the original wall was relocated to Peace Park at the epicenter of the blast. The statues of St John and the Virgin Mary, which stood at the enterance to the cathedral during the blast are displayed in the new cathedral as they were found: scorched by the blast, and with noses, fingers, and fine details broken off.

Here's a picture of the Virgin Mary head (btw, anyone know how to resize images in a post?):

(http://www.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq255.html)

And a somewhat obscured photo of where they're now on display. You can see the Virgin Mary statue behind the kid on the left (sorry, best I could find):

(http://fr.news.yahoo.com/050808/74/4j648.html)

(note: i'm not christian, or pushing any political view here. i just find these bits of history interesting)

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-19 07:09:06

Mark :-

..i just find these bits of history interesting.

Yes. So do I!
Thanks, Mark.

Palomar · 2005-08-30 14:37:20

*This is an anecdote relative to nuclear use, and I don't wish to start a new thread just for it. I read this in The Old Farmer's 2006 Alamanac last evening:

"In 1963, engineers working on I-40 across California's Mojave Desert counsidered using 22 buried atomic bombs to obliterate the 1200-foot mountains that stood in the way. Not only would $8 million in construction costs be saved, but also the Atomic Energy Commission thought that the blast might publicize peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

In 1965 the idea was dropped because scientists couldn't accurately predict how long after the blast it would be safe for workers to return to the areas to build the new road."

Yeah, well...I'm glad they gave that some consideration.

--Cindy

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-30 06:17:07

Fermi's paradox answered?

the movie was not banned, just delayed a release for a long time

‘There wasn’t enough about the horror’: Hiroshima survivors react to Oppenheimer
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ … ed-reviews

What Japanese moviegoers have to say about Oppenheimer as it debuts on Hiroshima, Nagasaki screens
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oppenheim … -1.7159501

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-30 07:27:23

For Mars_B4_Moon re #64

Thanks for bringing this topic from 2005 back into view....

I just read it from the top, and under Palomar's leadership, the topic remained civil and productive.

There were several details of the history of the time that were brought into the series that are new to me, and perhaps might be new to others.

The existence of and plans for the fourth bomb were new to me.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-08-12 06:24:15

Re: July 16, 1945

#52 2005-08-12 06:39:20

Re: July 16, 1945

#53 2005-08-12 09:11:10

Re: July 16, 1945

#54 2005-08-12 09:34:16

Re: July 16, 1945

#55 2005-08-12 09:57:20

Re: July 16, 1945

#56 2005-08-12 10:14:01

Re: July 16, 1945

#57 2005-08-12 17:01:00

Re: July 16, 1945

#58 2005-08-12 21:37:14

Re: July 16, 1945

#59 2005-08-12 22:41:15

Re: July 16, 1945

#60 2005-08-13 09:12:25

Re: July 16, 1945

#61 2005-08-18 14:24:00

Re: July 16, 1945

#62 2005-08-19 07:09:06

Re: July 16, 1945

#63 2005-08-30 14:37:20

Re: July 16, 1945

#64 2024-03-30 06:17:07

Re: July 16, 1945

#65 2024-03-30 07:27:23

Re: July 16, 1945

Board footer