5 ms·

> These explosions were tests, shows of force to rival nations, and proof that countries such as Russia, France, and the U.S. had mastered the science of the bo

> These explosions were tests, shows of force to rival nations, and proof that countries such as Russia, France, and the U.S. had mastered the science of the bomb. Except for the two that weren't.

jaywalk 6y ago
Those two were on the other side of the world, and they're talking about US honey.
- dwighttk 6y ago
  > Here we show that vegetation thousands of kilometers from testing sites continues to cycle 137Cs because it mimics potassium, and consequently, bees magnify this radionuclide in honey. There were no atmospheric weapons tests in the eastern United States, but most honey here has detectable 137Cs at >0.03 Bq kg−1, and in the southeastern U.S., activities can be >500 times higher.
dwighttk 6y ago
Sort of depends on how you define “show of force”
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 6y ago
  That's precisely what they were. TL;DR, it was becoming apparent that Japan was not going to surrender, and were willing to fight to the last man standing. The nuclear bomb drops were to demonstrate to the Japanese government that they were clearly outmatched by the end of the war. It worked.
  - potiuper 6y ago
    There was no need to burn two cities. The head honchos could have been taken to the test(s); with the possibility of surrendering earlier with less territory lost to Soviets.
    - snypher 6y ago
      The reasoning I have heard is that USA wanted to show it just wasn't a one-off or all-or-nothing attempt. By showing they could do this multiple times, it was a more effective weapon.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        Could have just done two demonstrations/tests...
    - laverya 6y ago
      > There was no need to burn two cities. If you think the US only burned two Japanese cities, you should look at the history of the US's bombing campaign. Firebombs were used a lot. As for "taking the head honchos to the tests", let me propose a few counterfactuals: 1. Japanese leadership sees bomb, changes air defense priorities to target small groups of planes and not mass attacks. Enola Gay is shot down. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. 2. Japanese leadership thinks the US is soft and lacks will to victory, holds out even after bombs are dropped. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. 3. Japanese realize this isn't really worse than the existing mass firebombs, distributes more production and population away from cities. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. Considering how close the surrender seems to have been in our timeline (personal decision of the Emperor, overriding advisors and military leadership) I would not assume that a softer path would work.
      - potiuper 6y ago
        1. How would Japan know if the bombs would be delivered in small or large groups of planes? 2. If they do not surrender after demo, then drop on Japan. Invasion would never happen as U.S. was ramping up nuclear production: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/did-united-states-plan-drop-more-than-two-atomic-bombs-japan https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/... 3. Where would Japan move all those people and production? Why did they not move them given the existing firebombing? https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-history-180954512/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-... Japan was confined to a fossil fuel poor mountainous island at the end of the war. Japan could only prepare for a last ditch defense of the home.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    It was to create the impression there was an indefinite supply of bombs, but to who? I believe there is an opinion of some that part of the motivation was to prevent the Soviet Union from moving in after Japan's defeat, like they did in Europe. This is often asserted as if it were a shocking revelation and a moral indictment of the decision. However, it seems to me both a plausible motivation (I haven't bothered to read up on the evidence or don't remember if I have) and potentially morally defensible, particularly in hindsight.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    Actually they had already lost the war on the chinese front and would have surrendered anyway...
  - dTal 6y ago
    That's the popular narrative, yes. I've seldom heard a historian endorse it. Rather, the evidence suggests that the surrender was primarily triggered by the Soviet Union's declaration of war. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap... Note that it's in the interests of both countries to promote the Bomb narrative - America to justify the financial and moral cost, and Japan to justify the loss of the war (a black-swan wonder-weapon being a less shameful reason for defeat than military incompetence). But in truth, Japan's cities had already been firebombed to smithereens - in that context the Bomb wasn't really all that shocking.

> These explosions were tests, shows of force to rival nations, and proof that countries such as Russia, France, and the U.S. had mastered the science of the bomb. Except for the two that weren't.

jaywalk 6y ago

Those two were on the other side of the world, and they're talking about US honey.

dwighttk 6y ago
> Here we show that vegetation thousands of kilometers from testing sites continues to cycle 137Cs because it mimics potassium, and consequently, bees magnify this radionuclide in honey. There were no atmospheric weapons tests in the eastern United States, but most honey here has detectable 137Cs at >0.03 Bq kg−1, and in the southeastern U.S., activities can be >500 times higher.

dwighttk 6y ago

Sort of depends on how you define “show of force”

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 6y ago
That's precisely what they were. TL;DR, it was becoming apparent that Japan was not going to surrender, and were willing to fight to the last man standing. The nuclear bomb drops were to demonstrate to the Japanese government that they were clearly outmatched by the end of the war. It worked.
- potiuper 6y ago
  There was no need to burn two cities. The head honchos could have been taken to the test(s); with the possibility of surrendering earlier with less territory lost to Soviets.
  - snypher 6y ago
    The reasoning I have heard is that USA wanted to show it just wasn't a one-off or all-or-nothing attempt. By showing they could do this multiple times, it was a more effective weapon.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      Could have just done two demonstrations/tests...
  - laverya 6y ago
    > There was no need to burn two cities. If you think the US only burned two Japanese cities, you should look at the history of the US's bombing campaign. Firebombs were used a lot. As for "taking the head honchos to the tests", let me propose a few counterfactuals: 1. Japanese leadership sees bomb, changes air defense priorities to target small groups of planes and not mass attacks. Enola Gay is shot down. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. 2. Japanese leadership thinks the US is soft and lacks will to victory, holds out even after bombs are dropped. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. 3. Japanese realize this isn't really worse than the existing mass firebombs, distributes more production and population away from cities. Invasion happens starting in October; 500k+ die at minimum. Considering how close the surrender seems to have been in our timeline (personal decision of the Emperor, overriding advisors and military leadership) I would not assume that a softer path would work.
    - potiuper 6y ago
      1. How would Japan know if the bombs would be delivered in small or large groups of planes? 2. If they do not surrender after demo, then drop on Japan. Invasion would never happen as U.S. was ramping up nuclear production: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/did-united-states-plan-drop-more-than-two-atomic-bombs-japan https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/... 3. Where would Japan move all those people and production? Why did they not move them given the existing firebombing? https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-history-180954512/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/deadliest-air-raid-... Japan was confined to a fossil fuel poor mountainous island at the end of the war. Japan could only prepare for a last ditch defense of the home.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  It was to create the impression there was an indefinite supply of bombs, but to who? I believe there is an opinion of some that part of the motivation was to prevent the Soviet Union from moving in after Japan's defeat, like they did in Europe. This is often asserted as if it were a shocking revelation and a moral indictment of the decision. However, it seems to me both a plausible motivation (I haven't bothered to read up on the evidence or don't remember if I have) and potentially morally defensible, particularly in hindsight.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Actually they had already lost the war on the chinese front and would have surrendered anyway...
- dTal 6y ago
  That's the popular narrative, yes. I've seldom heard a historian endorse it. Rather, the evidence suggests that the surrender was primarily triggered by the Soviet Union's declaration of war. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap... Note that it's in the interests of both countries to promote the Bomb narrative - America to justify the financial and moral cost, and Japan to justify the loss of the war (a black-swan wonder-weapon being a less shameful reason for defeat than military incompetence). But in truth, Japan's cities had already been firebombed to smithereens - in that context the Bomb wasn't really all that shocking.