Why use the atomic bomb on Japan?

[Airbrush]

To show off to the world what the US could do? Japan was already beaten. We also found out that the Nazis never developed anything close to an A bomb. Japan was already totally cut off from the world by US submarines and air force. No more imports so they were on the verge of starving. They were also having their cities systematically destroyed by huge B29 incendiary strikes, like the one that killed 100,000 people in Tokyo IN A DAY. All that happened by using the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to REVEAL to the world that such a weapon EXISTS. What they should have done, IMHO, is realize that nobody needs to know about IT, and that IT should be covered up so nobody else can create an A bomb. There should have been a HUGE, Manhattan-Project-sized, intelligence operation to do everything we can to make sure that no country can create such a bomb, except for the US. The US would TRY keep the A bomb a secret as long as possible.  That would have saved so much money.  Of course you can't keep something like that a secret forever, but at least stall it as long as possible.  Or is this a naive proposal?

Edited March 18 by Airbrush

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Or is this a naive proposal?

Yes. I don’t think your post has a sold basis in fact.

[Airbrush]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. I don’t think your post has a sold basis in fact.

Please explain why.  You believe that the existence of the bomb could not be covered up?  Why not at least stall such a bomb to the rest of the world?

Edited March 18 by Airbrush

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

You believe that the existence of the bomb could not be covered up?

Of course not.  The worlds physicist all knew of uranium fission and the idea of a self sustaining nuclear reaction by 1940 at least.  The hardest part of making an atomic bomb is refining the uranium or plutonium.

[Airbrush]

20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Of course not.  The worlds physicist all knew of uranium fission and the idea of a self sustaining nuclear reaction by 1940 at least.  The hardest part of making an atomic bomb is refining the uranium or plutonium.

The world's physicists were not aware of the bomb test success.  Physicists cannot build a bomb.  It takes a Manhattan Project.  The test could have been covered up and the US would get into an intelligence operation to prevent other nations from developing the bomb.  Besides no other nation had the money for their own Manhattan Project.  Are you aware that the project was secret?

Or were the Soviets already inside the Manhattan Project, taking notes, before the A bombs were used on Japan?  Maybe the Soviets already knew how to build the bomb and did not need to spend on their own Manhattan Project?

Edited March 18 by Airbrush

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The world's physicists were not aware of the bomb test success.

Right.

 

4 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Physicists cannot build a bomb.

Physicist working with engineers and technicians can.

 

5 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

It takes a Manhattan Project.

If you mean it is a really big project to develop a nuclear program, I agree. 

7 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The test could have been covered up and the US would get into an intelligence operation to prevent other nations from developing the bomb.

Nope, the 'cat was out of the bag' in 1940, all it would take was money and a desire to make a bomb.

9 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Besides no other nation had the money for their own Manhattan Project.

Well apparently even countries like Pakistan and North Korea did.

11 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Are you aware that the project was secret?

Yes, are you aware that most physicist were already aware a bomb could be made by 1940?

[Airbrush]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Well apparently, even countries like Pakistan and North Korea did.

Yes, are you aware that most physicist were already aware a bomb could be made by 1940?

So that means the US did so much work, and spent so much money, to prove the bomb was possible, but once the word gets out how to build it, even a poor country could build one.

Edited March 18 by Airbrush

[pzkpfw]

Nothing that big would have stayed secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Please explain why.  You believe that the existence of the bomb could not be covered up?  Why not at least stall such a bomb to the rest of the world?

Klaus Fuchs. The Rosenbergs. And others.

Also, your premise that Japan was beaten does not match the facts. They did not acknowledge it. They rejected the Potsdam terms. They did not surrender, even after the first bomb was dropped. 

6 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Well apparently even countries like Pakistan and North Korea did.

Did they do their own Manhattan project equivalent, or did they use pilfered results?

One thing about research is the time, money and effort you spend finding out things that don’t work. Subsequent efforts don’t have to expend resources chasing these down.

[MigL]

The theory for the fission bomb was already well established, but some of the parameters could only be obtained by experiment.
The problem is that the experiment consumes a large amount of fissile material.
As it was, the Americans were already hedging their bets, because they didn't know which system would work ( better ? ).
E Fermi had already shown how to produce Plutonium from large amounts of Uranium in the reactor in Chicago; the other approach was liquid thermal diffusion of a Uranium compound to enrich it.
The fissionable material for the bombs, Plutonium and enriched Uranium, was produced at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
That is where the 'heavy lifting' was done.
Given the fissionable material, and some resources, even a shmuck like me could design a simple fission bomb.
Other complications are arming and delivery of the weapon without it doing unintended damage.

The Germans were well ahead of the Americans in the late 30s in the theory aspect, but by 1940 A Hitler had conscripted many of Germany's leading scientists; others, mostly Jewish, were either purged, or escaped to America.
Hitler's advisors overestimated the time needed to develop a fission bomb, and he refused to devote manpower and resources to such a project, assuming it would not be ready in time to make a difference in the war.
He did authorize development of a reactor, but even that was small scale, and used inefficient heavy water moderation instead of graphite.

Japan was given a chance to surrender, but the military leaders had promised to oppose an invasion of the Japanese mainland to the very last man. It would have resulted in much higher casualties on both sides. As Swansont noted, even fire bombing Tokyo, and the first A-bomb drop, was not enough to convince them.

You know what they say about 20/20 hindsight, armchair quarterbacking, the fog of war, and losing opportunities by second guessing, don't you ?

Edited March 18 by MigL

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

To show off to the world what the US could do? Japan was already beaten. We also found out that the Nazis never developed anything close to an A bomb. Japan was already totally cut off from the world by US submarines and air force. No more imports so they were on the verge of starving. They were also having their cities systematically destroyed by huge B29 incendiary strikes, like the one that killed 100,000 people in Tokyo IN A DAY. All that happened by using the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to REVEAL to the world that such a weapon EXISTS. What they should have done, IMHO, is realize that nobody needs to know about IT, and that IT should be covered up so nobody else can create an A bomb. There should have been a HUGE, Manhattan-Project-sized, intelligence operation to do everything we can to make sure that no country can create such a bomb, except for the US. The US would TRY keep the A bomb a secret as long as possible.  That would have saved so much money.  Of course you can't keep something like that a secret forever, but at least stall it as long as possible.  Or is this a naive proposal?

I like your proposal.

Politicians are like children. Want to put on the ritz, show off in the sandbox..

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

The world's physicists were not aware of the bomb test success. 

It is irrelevant..

Nuclear fission was discovered by German-Nazi scientists in 1938.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_nuclear_fission

..and this led to Einstein's proposal to create an American version of it, before Nazis..

 

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Physicists cannot build a bomb.

This is patently untrue.

 

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

It takes a Manhattan Project. 

Are you suggesting a large cost?

Compare how much NASA spent, and how much SpaceX spent, on the same task.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

even fire bombing Tokyo, and the first A-bomb drop, was not enough to convince them.

Would the Americans surrender if Washington was destroyed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

 

 

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

The test could have been covered up

..it could have been done anywhere and none of the living observers would have understood what actually happened..

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

up and the US would get into an intelligence operation to prevent other nations from developing the bomb. 

This statement is silly..

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Airbrush said:

To show off to the world what the US could do?

No. To better fight a war. Nothing magical about nuclear weapons, they are just like other weapons only more powerful. They also worked to develop radar, better and faster planes, jet engines, etc. None of these were to show off; they were to help win a war.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Would the Americans surrender if Washington was destroyed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

The circumstances surrounding this and Hiroshima are hardly comparable.

[Sensei]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

The circumstances surrounding this and Hiroshima are hardly comparable.

If you weren't in hot water writing this post, you would have read (or between the lines i.e. in good faith) that we were talking about the potential bombing of Tokyo.. so, I was not comparing Hiroshima vs Washington, but Tokyo vs Washington, i.e. destruction of capital city of 1st country vs destruction of capital city of 2nd country.. Which is quite obvious from my statement. Thus, the introduction of Hiroshima into this topic is out of place, as I was comparing destruction of two capitals..
 

Edited March 19 by Sensei

[Eise]

Wow, so much to unravel here.

12 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Or is this a naive proposal?

Yes. The scientific background was in the open. So it would be just a matter of time. And then the point Swansont mentioned:

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Klaus Fuchs. The Rosenbergs. And others.

 

12 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Japan was already beaten. 

(...)

They were also having their cities systematically destroyed by huge B29 incendiary strikes, like the one that killed 100,000 people in Tokyo IN A DAY.

That is true, more or less. But Japan simply did not capitulate. So the war could have taken much longer, taking many lives of American soldiers.

13 hours ago, Airbrush said:

We also found out that the Nazis never developed anything close to an A bomb.

Yes, but only after Germany was defeated. Heisenberg was in charge. The infamous meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr in 1941, gave the latter the impression that the Nazis were making serious work of the atomic bomb, and brought this impression to the US.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Hitler's advisors overestimated the time needed to develop a fission bomb, and he refused to devote manpower and resources to such a project, assuming it would not be ready in time to make a difference in the war.
He did authorize development of a reactor, but even that was small scale, and used inefficient heavy water moderation instead of graphite.

Yep. I have seen the 'atom cellar' in Haigerloch:

Does not quite compare to Los Alamos, is it?

13 hours ago, Airbrush said:

All that happened by using the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to REVEAL to the world that such a weapon EXISTS.

I would not put my hand in the fire for this, but it surely was a reason: Truman said something like this about the Soviets and the atomic bomb: "Now we have a real hammer on those boys". Another reason might have been to have a 'real live test'. A hint for this is the second bomb. One of the A-bombs was a U-235, the other a plutonium bomb. Wouldn't it be interesting to compare their effects 'in the field'?

About the capitulation of Japan: there was a struggle between the civilian government and the military. The government wanted to give up, the military wanted to fight until the bitter end. One of the struggling points was the position of the emperor. The US wanted an unconditional capitulation, the Japanese government found that the position of the emperor could not be discussed. In the end the Japanese government made a very unusual proposal: let the emperor decide. In the meantime the first atomic bomb was dropped. If this fact had an influence on the decision of Hirohito is not known, fact is that he chose to capitulate. His speech in which he called for the capitulation was recorded, to be brought to the Japanese radio studios. Radical militaries tried to steal the recording on its way to the radio station, but they did not succeed. Hirohito's speech was broadcasted, and Japan capitulated. And the US more or less let the emperor untouched. Had the US made it known that the emperor could stay earlier, Japan might also have capitulated earlier. Maybe the A-bombs would not have been necessary. 

Main source: Bert Röling, who was a.o. member of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also called the Tokyo Tribunal, similar to the Nürnberg Tribunal in Germany).

 

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

Nuclear fission was discovered by German-Nazi scientists in 1938.

Hmmm. Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch were hardly Nazis, they were Jewish and fled Germany in 1938. Otto Hahn:

Quote

Between 1934 and 1938, he worked with Strassmann and Meitner on the study of isotopes created through the neutron bombardment of uranium and thorium, which led to the discovery of nuclear fission. He was an opponent of national socialism and the persecution of Jews by the Nazi Party that caused the removal of many of his colleagues, including Meitner, who was forced to flee Germany in 1938.

Fritz Strassmann:

Quote

 

In 1933 Strassmann resigned from the Society of German Chemists when it became part of a Nazi-controlled public corporation. He was blacklisted by the Nazi regime. As a result, he could not work in the chemical industry nor could he receive his habilitation as required to be an independent researcher in Germany at the time. Lise Meitner encouraged Otto Hahn to find an assistantship for Strassmann at half pay, and he eventually became a special assistant to Meitner and Hahn. Strassmann considered himself fortunate, for "despite my affinity for chemistry, I value my personal freedom so highly that to preserve it I would break stones for a living."

Strassman's wife Maria supported his refusal to join the Nazi Party. During World War II they concealed a Jewish woman, musician Andrea Wolfenstein, in their apartment for months, putting themselves and their three-year-old son at risk. Strassmann continued his research in radiochemistry during World War II, although he did not work on weapons development. He disdained the Nazi regime and is reported to have said, "If my work would lead to Hitler having an atomic bomb I would kill myself."

 

So four of the 'main characters' were definitely not Nazis. Equating 'German' and 'Nazi' is simply wrong, also during WWII.

[StringJunky]

14 hours ago, Airbrush said:

To show off to the world what the US could do? Japan was already beaten. We also found out that the Nazis never developed anything close to an A bomb. Japan was already totally cut off from the world by US submarines and air force. No more imports so they were on the verge of starving. They were also having their cities systematically destroyed by huge B29 incendiary strikes, like the one that killed 100,000 people in Tokyo IN A DAY. All that happened by using the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to REVEAL to the world that such a weapon EXISTS. What they should have done, IMHO, is realize that nobody needs to know about IT, and that IT should be covered up so nobody else can create an A bomb. There should have been a HUGE, Manhattan-Project-sized, intelligence operation to do everything we can to make sure that no country can create such a bomb, except for the US. The US would TRY keep the A bomb a secret as long as possible.  That would have saved so much money.  Of course you can't keep something like that a secret forever, but at least stall it as long as possible.  Or is this a naive proposal?

From a non-nationalist perspective, no country should have overwhelming, asymmetric military ability. That's not how one maintains an equitable global peace. In that light, it was highly fortunate the Americans couldn't keep it to themselves.

Edited March 19 by StringJunky

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

If you weren't in hot water writing this post, you would have read (or between the lines i.e. in good faith) that we were talking about the potential bombing of Tokyo..

A) Hot water?

B) If one has to read between the lines, you can't argue about good faith. You've admitted that the meaning isn't clear. 

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

so, I was not comparing Hiroshima vs Washington, but Tokyo vs Washington, i.e. destruction of capital city of 1st country vs destruction of capital city of 2nd country.. Which is quite obvious from my statement. Thus, the introduction of Hiroshima into this topic is out of place, as I was comparing destruction of two capitals..
 

Since you quoted both Tokyo and the A-bomb, no that's not at all clear. But my point still stands - the circumstances were very different. The burning of Washington was not the culmination of some systematic retaking of territory as the opposing force was drawing closer and closer. If Washington had been burned after the British had won dozens of battles and were occupying a bunch of territory that the US had previously held, then we could compare the situations.

[TheVat]

One historical theory I've heard is that the A-bomb, because of its incredible destructive power, allowed Japanese command to "save face" in their surrender.  Had the US simply continued with conventional artillery and firebombing, the warrior culture of Japan would have seen this as something they could try to stand up to and therefore a surrender would have been shameful.  We can never really be sure how a non-atomic invasion would have played out, given we have no alternate timeline to look in on.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

We can never really be sure how a non-atomic invasion would have played out, given we have no alternate timeline to look in on.

We can know what the military anticipated though. They made >1.5 million purple heart medals in WWII, many in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. Almost 500k were left over at war’s end. They’re still issuing medals from that stock.

[MigL]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

Yep. I have seen the 'atom cellar' in Haigerloch:

Wow !
I didn't think that survived.

Nice post, Eise.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I didn't think that survived.

Well, it is a replica. You wouldn't like to visit in a cellar with a lot of radioactive material literally hanging around. AFAIK the Americans dismantled the experimental reactor, and took it to the US.

The idea of the reactor was of course to lower the 'fission cubes' into the heavy water in the tank below it. If it really worked I do not even know. There are several not so nice stories about the heavy water. It came from a factory in Sweden. One time the English sent a commando in order to sabotage the plant. They succeeded, but damage was repaired in due time. And then there is the sinking of a ship to transport the heavy water from the plant. It was a sabotage act by the Swedish resistance. Innocent civilians were also on board, and drowned.

[MigL]

10 hours ago, Eise said:

Haigerloch:

I love reading about these little European towns, Eise.

I went to Schaffhausen to see the Rhinefalls.
My cousin said they were the largest falls in Europe.
I was thinking ( to myself  "Have you seen Niagara Falls ?".

And of course you can't get any lunch between 1 and 5 pm, so we crossed into Germany ( and me without my passport ) on our way to Basel. We stopped at a quaint little town called Waldshut-Tiengen  and had a late lunch in what looked like a castle courtyard surrounded by shops and restaurants.

My apologies for the veer off track, but I love Southern Germany, much more than Switzerland ( sorry Eise ).

Edited March 19 by MigL

[joigus]

On 3/19/2024 at 8:42 AM, Eise said:

Yes, but only after Germany was defeated. Heisenberg was in charge. The infamous meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr in 1941, gave the latter the impression that the Nazis were making serious work of the atomic bomb, and brought this impression to the US.

Hey, nice account.

BTW, I recommend you Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn. It's about that (in)famous meeting, and offers a possible development that I can only conceive as happening with a many-world view.

Edited March 20 by joigus
minor correction

[toucana]

On 3/18/2024 at 5:52 PM, Airbrush said:

To show off to the world what the US could do? Japan was already beaten. We also found out that the Nazis never developed anything close to an A bomb. Japan was already totally cut off from the world by US submarines and air force. No more imports so they were on the verge of starving. They were also having their cities systematically destroyed by huge B29 incendiary strikes, like the one that killed 100,000 people in Tokyo IN A DAY. All that happened by using the A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to REVEAL to the world that such a weapon EXISTS. What they should have done, IMHO, is realize that nobody needs to know about IT, and that IT should be covered up so nobody else can create an A bomb. There should have been a HUGE, Manhattan-Project-sized, intelligence operation to do everything we can to make sure that no country can create such a bomb, except for the US. The US would TRY keep the A bomb a secret as long as possible.  That would have saved so much money.  Of course you can't keep something like that a secret forever, but at least stall it as long as possible.  Or is this a naive proposal?

I would suggest that you read The Fall Of Japan by William Craig (1968) which provides a good readable account of the Pacific war, and which covers the following points in some detail:

i. The USA leadership did not know it had a viable atom bomb until the Trinity test took place in the New Mexico desert on Monday July 16th 1945. Even the top US military commanders i.e. General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz who were leading the war against the Japanese in the Pacific knew nothing about the Manhattan project until they were subsequently shown films of the test firing at Los Alamos.

ii. All of the US planning for the military defeat of Japan had been finalised at the Honolulu conference a year earlier in July 1944, and was predicated on a massive amphibious assault using conventional forces that might well cause over 1 million American casualties according to American planners who had recently witnessed US casualties of over 40,000 suffered when capturing the tiny garrison island of Okinawa in May 1945.

iii. The Japanese knew perfectly well that the allies would need to carry out a two-stage occupation of the Japanese archipelago, starting with the capture of the island of Kyushu. Their defensive plan Ketsu-Go developed by the Japanese army aimed to break the morale of the invading forces by inflicting massive casualties on the only two suitable landing beaches available on Kyushu as they came ashore.

iv. When the Japanese did surrender, and turned over the details of their battle plans, American strategists found that Japan’s Ketsu-Go planners had anticipated almost every single detail of the Allied invasion plan. One of the few details in the US order of battle that had eluded Japanese military intelligence was the real purpose of the 509th Composite Bombing group, which was the unit that actually dropped the atomic bombs.

v. The Japanese government had absolutely no intention of surrendering to the US under any circumstances, Their premier Suzuki had rejected an ultimatum issued to Japan by the allies following the Potsdam conference on 2nd August using the Japanese phrase mokusatsu 黙殺  which means “with silent contempt”. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed on August 6 and August 9 respectively, high ranking Japanese military officers staged a bloody coup in a failed attempt to prevent the recording of Emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech from being broadcast on Japanese radio the next day.

vi. It was the US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson who first suggested using the new atom bomb to end the war at a cabinet meeting shortly after the Trinity test. It was said that Stimson himself personally removed Kyoto from the list of possible targets, because he and his wife had spent their honeymoon in that beautuful ancient city some years earlier. President Truman later confided to a biographer that one compelling reason why he authorised the atom bombing of Japan was because he believed that he would have been impeached for incompetence by Congress in his role as Commander-in-Chief if he had refused to use the bomb, and had proceeded with a conventional amphibious assault that cost a million allied casualties instead.

(Archive photo taken at the Honolulu conference in July 1944. Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz knew of the existence of the Manhattan project).

[swansont]

3 hours ago, toucana said:

The USA leadership did not know it had a viable atom bomb until the Trinity test took place in the New Mexico desert on Monday July 16th 1945.

Implosion bomb, yes. They were quite confident the gun-type uranium bomb would work, since they had already done tests, though they didn’t do a full-blown (as it were) test like Trinity.

https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2020-summer/why-wasnt-little-boy-tested/

“The scientists were not simply confident Little Boy would work, they knew Little Boy would work—it was a mathematical certainty. Thus, the weapon went into combat without a full-scale nuclear explosive test.”