What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:08 last edited by
The road not taken.
I think it is good that the world saw what it could do early on.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:22 last edited by
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
I think it is good that the world saw what it could do early on.
I remember reading a comment saying, "The United States should have warned Japan about this."
The best reply:
We did.
Twice.
The first warning was in writing, the second was called "Hiroshima." -
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:34 last edited by
The other "what if" is "what if the US dropped the atomic bombs in Germany instead of Japan."
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:36 last edited by
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:41 last edited by
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 02:47 last edited by
Lol
Hey I’m no history buff, but the dates of Germany’s surrender and the bombing of Japan are googlable.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 03:17 last edited by
As a child I remember seeing a copy of a WWII era Fortune magazine where they spoke of how we would win the war with Japan by 1948.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 03:47 last edited by
Since Japan started WW2, I guess it's only fitting they were the recipient of the most powerful weapon used during the war.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 10:28 last edited by Mik@Axtremus said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
For starters the first atomic bomb was not ready before July 45, three months after Germany surrendered. The Allies all had troops in Germany, so we'd have been dropping it near our own troops. Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell." Simone Weil
-
Since Japan started WW2, I guess it's only fitting they were the recipient of the most powerful weapon used during the war.
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 11:31 last edited by@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
Since Japan started WW2
Some will say that Hitler's invasion of Poland was the official start of WWII. Two days after that invasion, France and Britain declared war.
One could say that Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was a precursor, however.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 11:34 last edited by Mik
I think he meant Pearl Harbor and the start of US military involvement, but I get your point.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 12:38 last edited by
No, he meant Manchuria.
After WW1, Japan experienced a population explosion and an industrial surge. Led primarily by the military in a nominal democracy that also had an emporor (that's complicated), the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
-
No, he meant Manchuria.
After WW1, Japan experienced a population explosion and an industrial surge. Led primarily by the military in a nominal democracy that also had an emporor (that's complicated), the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 12:40 last edited by@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
-
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 12:52 last edited by@George-K said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
Roosevelt didn't care for the Japanese or their motives. By 1937, the New Deal was playing out and Roosevelt, as many presidents do, became more involved in foreign policy. The screws started to turn on the Japanese. Restrictions of trade, particularly oil and steel, talk of a naval blockade, breaking off negotiations with the Japanese...All were part of the effort.
We knew what we were doing. As Stimson wrote in his diary, The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 12:55 last edited by
Sounds something like Russia-Ukraine. I’ve long suspected we wanted them to invade.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 13:06 last edited by
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 16:09 last edited by@Copper said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
Channeling Patton, are we?
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2023, 16:11 last edited by
For some interesting history, do a little reading on Churchill 's naughty document...
-
@Axtremus said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
For starters the first atomic bomb was not ready before July 45, three months after Germany surrendered. The Allies all had troops in Germany, so we'd have been dropping it near our own troops. Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
wrote on 4 Aug 2023, 01:13 last edited by@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
This.
I read an article about the estimated cost in lifes (on both sides) if the US would have NOT used the atom bomb and would have done a traditional land invasion. It would have been much much much higher than the loss from the atom bombs.
