Japan and the Bomb

[Spindrift]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

We were out of a-bombs at that point. I suppose that since Japan couldn't mount an offense at that point that we could have just waited to make more atomic bombs. We could have blockaded the country and continued with conventional bombing. But if 2 a-bombs didn't work, would 10?

Does anyone know how long it took to make another atomic bomb?

 

[drkitten]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

My understanding is that there were plans on the books for an invasion of Japan. The A-bombs were more or less a throwaway afterthought -- let's see if these work -- in an attempt to provide Japan with an incentive to surrender.

The reason that Truman wasn't too keen on the invasion of Japan is not that it wouldn't have worked, but that the casualties were expected to be huge; the numbers I've read suggest one million Allied (mostly US) casualties and ten million Japanese. But we had the troops to lose if necessary. "War is Hell."

 

[qayak]

This was the reason that the U.S. decided not to try and kill the Emperor. They were informed by experts on Japanese culture that the easiest way to end the war was to get the Emperor tell the Japanese people to stop fighting and they would. If the Emperor was killed, there would be no one to tell them and they would likely continue fighting and an invasion would have been necessary.

Ruth Benedict explains it all very well in her book The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture.

 

[MG1962]

I dont have the link any more, but provision casualty rates (deaths not injuries) Where expected to be about a 1000 an hour for the first 48 hours

 

[bigred]

I like these "what if" type questions.

Summed up pretty well by the responses on this one. Dang - y'all didn't leave me much

 

[Spindrift]

My understanding is that there were plans on the books for an invasion of Japan. The A-bombs were more or less a throwaway afterthought -- let's see if these work -- in an attempt to provide Japan with an incentive to surrender.

The reason that Truman wasn't too keen on the invasion of Japan is not that it wouldn't have worked, but that the casualties were expected to be huge; the numbers I've read suggest one million Allied (mostly US) casualties and ten million Japanese. But we had the troops to lose if necessary. "War is Hell."

I know they had plans for invasion, without the a-bomb there wasn't any other way to conquer Japan.

But if after seeing the destructiveness of the a-bombs, might they not have thought that if we can just get enough of these things, we could bomb them out of existence. Not saying it would work, but after the slaughter of Iwo Jima and Okinawa I think the Allies would try anything to not have to invade.

That's why I was wondering how long it took to make another bomb after the only ones we had were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[andyandy]

I know they had plans for invasion, without the a-bomb there wasn't any other way to conquer Japan.

But if after seeing the destructiveness of the a-bombs, might they not have thought that if we can just get enough of these things, we could bomb them out of existence. Not saying it would work, but after the slaughter of Iwo Jima and Okinawa I think the Allies would try anything to not have to invade.

That's why I was wondering how long it took to make another bomb after the only ones we had were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

hmmm....not sure i agree that there was no way to end the war other than a-bomb or invasion....
prior to the a-bombs being dropped, Japan knew that it was a beaten force - but that it was the insistence upon unconditional surrender which made surrender an impossibility, being as it would see the Emperor given no protection from execution as a war criminal. Had this clause been added (indeed as it was after the surrender), then this combined with the impending entry of Russia into the conflict thus opening up a two front war, and the threat of nuclear strike - then this could well have been sufficient to bring about surrender. The either A-bomb or invasion is certainly a (post-war, politically palateable) oversimplification.....

 

[Crossbow]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

We were out of a-bombs at that point. I suppose that since Japan couldn't mount an offense at that point that we could have just waited to make more atomic bombs. We could have blockaded the country and continued with conventional bombing. But if 2 a-bombs didn't work, would 10?

Does anyone know how long it took to make another atomic bomb?

The plan was for the USSR to invade Japan from the north (please recall that the USSR did declare war on Japan shortly after the bombs were dropped) and that the USA and its allies (mainly England) would invade Japan from the south with MacArthur in charge.

It probably would have taken about six months to create enough Plutonium to build another bomb.

If you listen carefully to the address Truman made to Japan after the bombs were used he does not precisely say that further atom bombs would be used, instead he says something like "Japan will endure a rain of ruin the likes of which the world has never seen". Using large B-29 raids and convential bombs, that is quite likely indeed.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've often wondered what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

We were out of a-bombs at that point. I suppose that since Japan couldn't mount an offense at that point that we could have just waited to make more atomic bombs. We could have blockaded the country and continued with conventional bombing. But if 2 a-bombs didn't work, would 10?

Does anyone know how long it took to make another atomic bomb?

Just watched a documentary on the topic. There were some Americans didn't want to accept surrender, and wanted to invade anyway.

 

[Mike B.]

Just watched a documentary on the topic. There were some Americans didn't want to accept surrender, and wanted to invade anyway.

While it is possible...some did not WANT surrender.

How realistic is that AUP?

Do you think FDR, Marshall, etc. would have turned down a Japanese surrender? Do you really think they were keen on the casualties in an invasion?

Do you bring it up to make some absurd anti-U.S. insinuation?

 

[andyandy]

Just watched a documentary on the topic. There were some Americans didn't want to accept surrender, and wanted to invade anyway.

i doubt that was more than minority view, probably held by people who weren't actually going to be involved in the invasion.....

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know they had plans for invasion, without the a-bomb there wasn't any other way to conquer Japan.

But if after seeing the destructiveness of the a-bombs, might they not have thought that if we can just get enough of these things, we could bomb them out of existence. Not saying it would work, but after the slaughter of Iwo Jima and Okinawa I think the Allies would try anything to not have to invade.

That's why I was wondering how long it took to make another bomb after the only ones we had were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But the A Bomb was not that much more destructive than previous air raids, it was just done with only one plane.

 

[ponderingturtle]

hmmm....not sure i agree that there was no way to end the war other than a-bomb or invasion....
prior to the a-bombs being dropped, Japan knew that it was a beaten force - but that it was the insistence upon unconditional surrender which made surrender an impossibility, being as it would see the Emperor given no protection from execution as a war criminal. Had this clause been added (indeed as it was after the surrender), then this combined with the impending entry of Russia into the conflict thus opening up a two front war, and the threat of nuclear strike - then this could well have been sufficient to bring about surrender. The either A-bomb or invasion is certainly a (post-war, politically palateable) oversimplification.....

But it was the view of the americans, and the japanese views on surrender where not well known before the end of the war. They where trying to comunitcate to the americans through the russians after all.

 

[Crossbow]

I know they had plans for invasion, without the a-bomb there wasn't any other way to conquer Japan.

But if after seeing the destructiveness of the a-bombs, might they not have thought that if we can just get enough of these things, we could bomb them out of existence. Not saying it would work, but after the slaughter of Iwo Jima and Okinawa I think the Allies would try anything to not have to invade.

That's why I was wondering how long it took to make another bomb after the only ones we had were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Umm, actually the A bomb was so secret that the preliminary planning work on the invasion of Japan had begun several months before the bombs were dropped without the planners knowing about the A bomb.

While the A bomb attacks were devastating, the attacks made using convential bombs were just as bad (and often worse) for Japan. However, one plane with one A bomb could do the work that it took scores of bombers with convential bombs to do so the A bomb made such attacks much more efficient.

Also, the fissionable material used in the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium which is a manufactured element, as opposed to naturally occuring, and at the time it took several months to produce enough of it for a bomb. Whereas the Nagaski bomb used a very rare isotope of uranium which also took months of refining just to produce enough for a bomb. In either case, that is why the delay you ask about occurred.

 

[Giz]

hmmm....not sure i agree that there was no way to end the war other than a-bomb or invasion....
prior to the a-bombs being dropped, Japan knew that it was a beaten force - but that it was the insistence upon unconditional surrender which made surrender an impossibility, being as it would see the Emperor given no protection from execution as a war criminal. Had this clause been added (indeed as it was after the surrender), then this combined with the impending entry of Russia into the conflict thus opening up a two front war, and the threat of nuclear strike - then this could well have been sufficient to bring about surrender. The either A-bomb or invasion is certainly a (post-war, politically palateable) oversimplification.....

The sticking point over unconditional surrender wasn't just about the Emperor, IIRC the negotiated settlement the Japanese tried to push via Moscow would have been more in the way of a ceasefire with the current Japanese imperialistic clique remaining in power and Japan retaining it's air/naval assets etc (maybe even some overseas conquests). It was never going to be acceptable to the allies - and the Japanese ambassador in Moscow was well aware of this.

 

[andyandy]

The sticking point over unconditional surrender wasn't just about the Emperor, IIRC the negotiated settlement the Japanese tried to push via Moscow would have been more in the way of a ceasefire with the current Japanese imperialistic clique remaining in power and Japan retaining it's air/naval assets etc (maybe even some overseas conquests). It was never going to be acceptable to the allies - and the Japanese ambassador in Moscow was well aware of this.

but, whenever you try to negotiate you always ask for more than you'll actually accept. The clause re the emperor, an imminent two front war and the theat of nuclear strike could well have sufficed.

 

[a_unique_person]

i doubt that was more than minority view, probably held by people who weren't actually going to be involved in the invasion.....

"some", as I said. It was the extreme hawks in the armed forces, and similar minded voters.

 

[a_unique_person]

While it is possible...some did not WANT surrender.

How realistic is that AUP?

Do you think FDR, Marshall, etc. would have turned down a Japanese surrender? Do you really think they were keen on the casualties in an invasion?

Do you bring it up to make some absurd anti-U.S. insinuation?

As I said "some", the extremist hawks. They didn't carry the weight of opinion.

 

[Giz]

but, whenever you try to negotiate you always ask for more than you'll actually accept. The clause re the emperor, an imminent two front war and the theat of nuclear strike could well have sufficed.

Then I would put the blame on the Japanese Generals/Ministers/Emperor for not being clearer. If you really want to surrender you should accept that you may need to put your hands up/wave a white flag/etc (i.e. clearly indicate that you want to/will surrender). To expect the Allies to engage in touchy feely mind reading in the closing hours of world war two seems a bit unreasonable.

This is fairly reasonable:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson080505.html

 

[andyandy]

This is fairly reasonable:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson080505.html

it mentions nothing of the political pressure to drop the bomb - both from a economic justification of the program expense and from the more pressing desire to limit Russian expansion in Asia. It perpetuates the notion that this was a simple black-white choice -ie either drop the bombs or millions die in a ground invasion. It's quite a long way from a decent historical account.

this is much better article - http://www.johnwcooper.com/papers/atomicbombtruman.htm

not that i agree with all of it - but it's at least well written.....

notice i'm not saying that the bombs definitely should not have been dropped - merely that the motivations to drop them were influenced by extended geopolitical and economic considerations. There were options available which could have brought about the end of the war without use of the bomb. The question is not would they have worked, but why weren't they tried? I think ultimately anyone who studies this subject in any depth is left with a certain empathy for Truman's decision, but a nagging doubt over it's necessity.