What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?

[George K]

Unrolled thread:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1683089952777592833.html

tl;dr version:

In sum, if the US had not used the atomic bomb on Japan:

• Japan likely divided between US-Soviet control
• Atomic bombs used in later wars
• Other nations still develop the bomb

Whether that makes for a better or worse world than the one we're in is difficult to answer.

[Copper]

@George-K said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:

if the US had not used the atomic bomb on Japan:

WWII would not yet be over.

The Japanese would take to the hills and never surrender.

JFK would have been killed in the Pacific, so we would never have started the moon program.

We wouldn't have the computers developed for NASA.

No PCs
No Cell phones
No EVs
No climate change
No DEI

[Mik]

The road not taken.

I think it is good that the world saw what it could do early on.

[George K]

@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."

[Axtremus]

The other "what if" is "what if the US dropped the atomic bombs in Germany instead of Japan."

[Mik]

By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.

[Axtremus]

@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?

[Horace]

Lol

Hey I’m no history buff, but the dates of Germany’s surrender and the bombing of Japan are googlable.

[kluurs]

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.

[Jolly]

Since Japan started WW2, I guess it's only fitting they were the recipient of the most powerful weapon used during the war.

[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.

[George K]

@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.

[Mik]

I think he meant Pearl Harbor and the start of US military involvement, but I get your point.

[Jolly]

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.

[George K]

@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]

@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.

[Mik]

Sounds something like Russia-Ukraine. I’ve long suspected we wanted them to invade.

[Copper]

@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]

@Copper Well, there is them.

[Jolly]

@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?