3 ms·

Several points to consider: 1. While much has been made of the theoretical physical effort at Los Alamos, without the Oak Ridge, TN and Hanford, WA chemical-ph

Several points to consider: 1. While much has been made of the theoretical physical effort at Los Alamos, without the Oak Ridge, TN and Hanford, WA chemical-physical production lines for uranium-235 and plutonium, bomb production would not have been possible. 2. These efforts required vast inputs of energy, mostly provided by hydroelectric projects such as TVA for the Oak Ridge uranium effort. It's highly implausible that such efforts would have succeeded in wartime Germany no matter how many resources were diverted to them. One bombing run would have wiped out the whole enterprise - and of course, neither Oak Ridge nor Hanford were subjected to aerial bombardment. 3. The Germans apparently were more interested in a nuclear rocket engine or some such than a nuclear bomb, by most accounts I've read. Also, their heavy water project in Norway was effectively sabotaged. Note also, many scientists involved with the bomb project quit as soon as they learned Germany was defeated and so the rationale of beating the Germans to the bomb no longer made any sense. FDR, if he hadn't died early, would almost certainly have rejected the use of the bomb against Japan, for the same reasons that he rejected the use of poison gas against the Japanese holdouts on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered rather than accept the occupation of northern Japan by Russian forces in a replay of East Germany. Isn't history fun?

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
>Note also, many scientists involved with the bomb project quit as soon as they learned Germany was defeated and so the rationale of beating the Germans to the bomb no longer made any sense. Joseph Rotblat did. There weren't any others, let alone "many". >FDR, if he hadn't died early, would almost certainly have rejected the use of the bomb against Japan, for the same reasons that he rejected the use of poison gas against the Japanese holdouts on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. I think most historians would strongly disagree with this.
SonicScrub 3y ago
> If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered rather than accept the occupation of northern Japan by Russian forces in a replay of East Germany. Do you have a source for a historian arguing this point? If so, I'd be curious to read it. My own (albeit, purely hobbyist level) understanding on this is that this would almost certainly not have been the case.
pests 3y ago
> One bombing run would have wiped out the whole enterprise Which is exactly what happened to the small nuclear program Japan was attempting.
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
> "...If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered..." There was a barely averted coup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident) to overturn Hirohito's decision surrender so that is clearly incorrect. The military, who was in control of the Japanese government, wanted to continue the war even after the use of both atomic weapons.
- housecarpenter 3y ago
  How does that contradict what you quoted? The claim is that if the Japanese had been able to conditionally surrender, with the condition of retaining their emperor, then they would have done so. You respond by pointing out that when the Japanese did eventually unconditionally surrendered, much of the government was still against that decision. That implies nothing about what their response would have been to a conditional surrender. It's just a non sequitur. If anything one would expect that there would have been less elements of the government resisting a conditional surrender and so the coup would have been more likely to be suppressed in that case.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

>Note also, many scientists involved with the bomb project quit as soon as they learned Germany was defeated and so the rationale of beating the Germans to the bomb no longer made any sense. Joseph Rotblat did. There weren't any others, let alone "many". >FDR, if he hadn't died early, would almost certainly have rejected the use of the bomb against Japan, for the same reasons that he rejected the use of poison gas against the Japanese holdouts on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. I think most historians would strongly disagree with this.

SonicScrub 3y ago

> If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered rather than accept the occupation of northern Japan by Russian forces in a replay of East Germany. Do you have a source for a historian arguing this point? If so, I'd be curious to read it. My own (albeit, purely hobbyist level) understanding on this is that this would almost certainly not have been the case.

pests 3y ago

> One bombing run would have wiped out the whole enterprise Which is exactly what happened to the small nuclear program Japan was attempting.

ThrowawayR2 3y ago

> "...If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered..." There was a barely averted coup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident) to overturn Hirohito's decision surrender so that is clearly incorrect. The military, who was in control of the Japanese government, wanted to continue the war even after the use of both atomic weapons.

housecarpenter 3y ago
How does that contradict what you quoted? The claim is that if the Japanese had been able to conditionally surrender, with the condition of retaining their emperor, then they would have done so. You respond by pointing out that when the Japanese did eventually unconditionally surrendered, much of the government was still against that decision. That implies nothing about what their response would have been to a conditional surrender. It's just a non sequitur. If anything one would expect that there would have been less elements of the government resisting a conditional surrender and so the coup would have been more likely to be suppressed in that case.