4 ms·

The US didn't have enough material for extra bombs. They had enough for two. That was part of the military consideration for the targets, as well.

csee 5y ago
Then why couldn't they drop one demo bomb in a sparsely populated area, wait a week, then drop the second one in a population center if no surrender is forthcoming? Is the delta is probability of surrender really that much lower that it's not worth trying to save 200k civilians via this approach?
- InTheArena 5y ago
  You've lost surprise - and the psychological shock that comes with it. Remember that the Allies wanted to maximize that shock, because it gave the dissident forces inside of the Japanese cabinet the most room to challenge the continue prosecution of the war. In this, they were absolutely correct.
  - csee 5y ago
    Possibly, but it seems speculative to me that this was an important thing. I imagine it would have been very surprising and shocking to have a demo nuke dropped a few miles away from Tokyo. Maybe less shocking, and that difference in shock value reduces the probability of surrender by an unacceptable amount?
detaro 5y ago
It wasn't "we have two and then can't make more", but rather slow production: ~10 days per bomb forecast over the next months. (a third one would have been ready still in August, a few days after the surrender)
InTheArena 5y ago
This isn't really correct. They had extra material that they wanted to use - but the Army (get this) wanted to collect bombs after the first two, so they could use them to nuke the beaches prior to Americans landing there. Yeah. a) they made the assumption that the nukes would not be enough, and b) planned for US soldiers to walk on post-bombing irradiated landings.
- jleyank 5y ago
  The scale and effect of radiation was not appreciated in the 40's and probably not into the 60's, given the scale of air testing. I thought much/most of the cast of a John Wayne movie (Ghengis Khan?) ended up with some kind of cancer after being downwind of a Nevada test? Look for The Atomic Cafe on the 'Net to see what the training films from back then had to say.
  - everforward 5y ago
    From what I've read, the scientists were at least partially aware, but the secrecy of the project caused compartmentalization. Just as an indicator, only two people died of acute radiation exposure in the Manhattan Project, and both people were avoiding the established safety protocols. That seems prima facie evidence that they were aware that high-dose radiation was bad. I think there was also pushback against those facts becoming more public after the war both due to the fact that the US used the atomic bomb, and also due to industrial uses of radioactive materials that no one wanted to pay for (a la the Radium Girls).

csee 5y ago

Then why couldn't they drop one demo bomb in a sparsely populated area, wait a week, then drop the second one in a population center if no surrender is forthcoming? Is the delta is probability of surrender really that much lower that it's not worth trying to save 200k civilians via this approach?

InTheArena 5y ago
You've lost surprise - and the psychological shock that comes with it. Remember that the Allies wanted to maximize that shock, because it gave the dissident forces inside of the Japanese cabinet the most room to challenge the continue prosecution of the war. In this, they were absolutely correct.
- csee 5y ago
  Possibly, but it seems speculative to me that this was an important thing. I imagine it would have been very surprising and shocking to have a demo nuke dropped a few miles away from Tokyo. Maybe less shocking, and that difference in shock value reduces the probability of surrender by an unacceptable amount?

detaro 5y ago

It wasn't "we have two and then can't make more", but rather slow production: ~10 days per bomb forecast over the next months. (a third one would have been ready still in August, a few days after the surrender)

InTheArena 5y ago

This isn't really correct. They had extra material that they wanted to use - but the Army (get this) wanted to collect bombs after the first two, so they could use them to nuke the beaches prior to Americans landing there. Yeah. a) they made the assumption that the nukes would not be enough, and b) planned for US soldiers to walk on post-bombing irradiated landings.

jleyank 5y ago
The scale and effect of radiation was not appreciated in the 40's and probably not into the 60's, given the scale of air testing. I thought much/most of the cast of a John Wayne movie (Ghengis Khan?) ended up with some kind of cancer after being downwind of a Nevada test? Look for The Atomic Cafe on the 'Net to see what the training films from back then had to say.
- everforward 5y ago
  From what I've read, the scientists were at least partially aware, but the secrecy of the project caused compartmentalization. Just as an indicator, only two people died of acute radiation exposure in the Manhattan Project, and both people were avoiding the established safety protocols. That seems prima facie evidence that they were aware that high-dose radiation was bad. I think there was also pushback against those facts becoming more public after the war both due to the fact that the US used the atomic bomb, and also due to industrial uses of radioactive materials that no one wanted to pay for (a la the Radium Girls).