3 ms·

The US dropped incendiary bombs in dozens of japanese cities, so an atomic bomb didn't really add much to the brutality of the situation. Furthermore, if the o

by forinti 11y ago

The US dropped incendiary bombs in dozens of japanese cities, so an atomic bomb didn't really add much to the brutality of the situation. Furthermore, if the objective of these bombs was to simply convince the japanese to shorten the war, couldn't they have been dropped off the coast of Tokyo?

rubidium 11y ago
He addressed this: "Later, another person questions using the atomic bomb at all. Why not drop it as a show of force in a rural area far away from people? Why didn’t America prove it had a superweapon then ask Japan to surrender?" “What would be lost?” Beser says. “The integrity of your threat is gone … the ability to carry out your threat is paramount. You do not win a war by just threatening to do things and then go ‘poof.’
artmageddon 11y ago
The US actually did consider this, but were worried that it would embolden the Japanese if the demonstration ended up being a failure(i.e. the bomb didn't properly detonate, yield was less than anticipated, etc. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-b-choices-truman-hirohito-and-the-atomic-bomb.html http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-b-...
adnam 11y ago
They needed to demonstrate not only the awesome and terrible power of the bomb, but also that it could be accurately targeted (hence, two bombs).
- maratd 11y ago
  > but also that it could be accurately targeted I think it was more to prove that it wasn't a one-off ... that it was repeatable and could be used as many times as is necessary. But that too.
- dandrews 11y ago
  And perhaps, to demonstrate the will to use it.
stillsut 11y ago
Think about the range of preferences held by Nazi high command as it became apparent they would lose the war: Some were prepared to go to their deaths and take as many of their own citizens with them in the name of ideology. Some desperately wanted a way to save their own skin, some were really trying to the greatest good for the greatest number. A 'preview bomb' announced through diplomatic channels would lend itself to debate among the top leadership that had everything to lose in defeat: life, power, and "face". Given that time to debate, there's more room to compromise with the hawkish view of adapt to the new weapon and keep resisting through rural and guerilla means. Japan's main play was to "rip off the steering wheel in the game of chicken" by saying we have every last person on this island ready to go kamikaze, you sure you want to walk into that? The actual bombings were probably necessary response of "ripping off our steering wheel" too. Basically, leaving no doubt as to the ruthlessness was essential to achieving the desired end - surrender without negotiation. Otherwise the US would be the impossible position of basically valuing the lives of Japanese citizens more than their own government which was prepared to use them as pawns.

by forinti 11y ago

rubidium 11y ago

He addressed this: "Later, another person questions using the atomic bomb at all. Why not drop it as a show of force in a rural area far away from people? Why didn’t America prove it had a superweapon then ask Japan to surrender?" “What would be lost?” Beser says. “The integrity of your threat is gone … the ability to carry out your threat is paramount. You do not win a war by just threatening to do things and then go ‘poof.’

artmageddon 11y ago

The US actually did consider this, but were worried that it would embolden the Japanese if the demonstration ended up being a failure(i.e. the bomb didn't properly detonate, yield was less than anticipated, etc. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-b-choices-truman-hirohito-and-the-atomic-bomb.html http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-b-...

adnam 11y ago

They needed to demonstrate not only the awesome and terrible power of the bomb, but also that it could be accurately targeted (hence, two bombs).

maratd 11y ago
> but also that it could be accurately targeted I think it was more to prove that it wasn't a one-off ... that it was repeatable and could be used as many times as is necessary. But that too.
dandrews 11y ago
And perhaps, to demonstrate the will to use it.

stillsut 11y ago

Think about the range of preferences held by Nazi high command as it became apparent they would lose the war: Some were prepared to go to their deaths and take as many of their own citizens with them in the name of ideology. Some desperately wanted a way to save their own skin, some were really trying to the greatest good for the greatest number. A 'preview bomb' announced through diplomatic channels would lend itself to debate among the top leadership that had everything to lose in defeat: life, power, and "face". Given that time to debate, there's more room to compromise with the hawkish view of adapt to the new weapon and keep resisting through rural and guerilla means. Japan's main play was to "rip off the steering wheel in the game of chicken" by saying we have every last person on this island ready to go kamikaze, you sure you want to walk into that? The actual bombings were probably necessary response of "ripping off our steering wheel" too. Basically, leaving no doubt as to the ruthlessness was essential to achieving the desired end - surrender without negotiation. Otherwise the US would be the impossible position of basically valuing the lives of Japanese citizens more than their own government which was prepared to use them as pawns.