WI No A-bombs dropped on Japan

Dunning Kruger · Oct 23, 2013

Japan surrenders after Soviet invasion of Manchuria and WWII ends the same but without dropping the bomb.

1) Are nukes viewed through the same moral lense as OTL where there is a distinction between WWII style total war and total war involving a-bombs?
2) Does the US nuke China in 1950/1951 as I believe MacArthur wanted?
3) Is war in Europe more likey during the 50s or 60s because the distinction in point 1 is not apparent?
4) Or are the practical realities of their potential power enough to create the same outcome without having the devastation/ of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to fall back on?
5) Other scenarios?

I would note that even in OTL, there were some, including I believe LeMay, who thought it was better to have a nuclear war earlier with the Soviets rather than wait and allow them to catch up. So, a perceived paradigm shift in total war does not appear to be universal. Thoughts?

Madoc · Oct 23, 2013

Okay, so...

The Manhattan Project still exists and was still on track by the summer of '45 to start delivering bombs on a regular basis. It's just that some minor events delayed the deployment of the first two bombs until the Soviet's attacked and Japan then capitulates far more quickly.

So, the only use of an atomic bomb is out in the otherwise empty New Mexico desert.

My oh my, all those Billions spent "for nothing" - and this, back when a Billion dollars was truly real money.

If the rest of the post-war events unfurl in the same manner - i.e. the creation of the Iron Curtain, the imperialism of the Soviet Union, the Berlin Blockade, and the Korean War's start - then I think, yes, the US would have definitely used nuclear weaponry all over that battlefield in that war.

And why not? It was an exceptionally useful weapon against troops caught out in the open. I could see there then being created a series of small metal placards being made and emplaced on small stone monuments throughout South Korea and the inscriptions on those placards would all be in the form of: "At this location on August 12th, 1950 the world's third (fourth, fifth, etc.,.) atomic bomb was detonated."

It'd then be an open question whether the Soviets would turn over any of their nukes to the North Koreans to return the favor against the UN troops as they approached the Yalu. Even for Stalin and Mao, that might've been a bit much. Perhaps just loudly hinting that such a turn over was about to take place might have done the trick instead.

I'd imagine it wouldn't be until the late 50's that the realization would begin to dawn about the downsides of atomic warfare. This, as American and South Korean forces began to realize all the radiation damage their bomb use had done.

And yes, it would be the South Koreans who would take the monster movie world by storm with their ATL version of Godzilla.

LHB · Oct 23, 2013

The Korean War might not even happen as it did OTL, no proven nuclear arsenal for the US is going to change some of the dynamics pretty drastically going into the Cold War. For one Stalin might be a bit less restrained in pursuing his agenda thanks to no American superweapon.

And just imagine the impact on the whole dynamic if the first battlefield use ends up being a Soviet weapon produced after the war

Sabot Cat · Oct 23, 2013

150,000–246,000 more people would be alive immediately afterwards, and the United States would be exempt from the war crime(s) associated with dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Dunning Kruger · Oct 23, 2013

AlienMoonBat said:
150,000–246,000 more people would be alive immediately afterwards, and the United States would be exempt from the war crime(s) associated with dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think war crimes credibility was firmly established with the Tokyo fire bombing. Even McNamara thought so.

sloreck · Oct 23, 2013

I hate to rain on the moonbat's parade, but the number of deaths if the bombs are not dropped will most certainly exceed the roughly 200,000-225,000 that died in those two cities. Yes, those people won't die but others will in other Japanese cities, civilians in occupied countries, as well as both Allied and Japanese soldiers who will be die and be injured as the fighting continues past the middle of August (oh and don't forget the Russians and Koreans who will die as well). So - no way the net human cost is decreased by not dropping the bombs, as the war will not end when it did OTL.

Secondly, if you want to call the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime, feel free - but they were no better or worse than the fire bombings of many other Japanese cities. The only difference was instead of a large number of B-29's dropping incendiaries, you had one plane drop a BIG bomb. It is probable that the largest firebombing of Tokyo, by conventional means, produced more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I don't want to start a flame war, merely point out that area bombing of cities (done by all combatants who could in WWII) is equally moral or immoral and is not tied to high explosives, incendiaries, or atomic weapons.

As far as the main thread goes - The USSR attacking Japan in August, 1945, will not cause Japan to surrender. The USSR may be able to assault the Ryukus but they simply don't have the amphibious capability to land anywhere truly important - and they can't go for the islands until they have made some progress in Manchuria & Korea. So, no atomic bombing means Olympic & Coronet plans go through unless they get the bomb before the first assault. If the invasion is still going on, but Japan has not surrendered expect the bomb to be used tactically.

The only way I see no bomb is if there are technical problems and the bomb is delayed over 6 months, so the war ends "conventionally". In any case while Stalin may bluster, he simply can't do anything in the west in 1945 - the USSR is on the ropes in too many ways.

Dunning Kruger · Oct 24, 2013

sloreck said:
As far as the main thread goes - The USSR attacking Japan in August, 1945, will not cause Japan to surrender. The USSR may be able to assault the Ryukus but they simply don't have the amphibious capability to land anywhere truly important - and they can't go for the islands until they have made some progress in Manchuria & Korea. So, no atomic bombing means Olympic & Coronet plans go through unless they get the bomb before the first assault. If the invasion is still going on, but Japan has not surrendered expect the bomb to be used tactically.

Debatable. I read arguments suggesting the Soviet declaration of war was the tipping point and I have read arguments saying it was the bomb.

My greater interest though is how its use affected its non-use later on. I am inclined to think the we would have used it on China or North Korea in 50/51 had we not used it in 45.

Alstein · Oct 24, 2013

Would the Soviets had developed nukes by 1950 with no Hiroshima?

The US would definitely had used them in Korea.

I don't think the late 40s would be butterflied, outside of maybe more US troops in Europe. It's not like the Soviets could invade easily- they were overextended and exhausted.

I do think in this scenario- we see a full-scale US nuclear assault in the Korean War, leading to a devastated but unified Korea, and perhaps a few more million dead Chinese.

Since China wouldn't be rehabilitated the way Japan was, the stigma on nukes would be much less, until we see radiation sickness in American troops.

Flubber · Oct 24, 2013

Alstein said:
Would the Soviets had developed nukes by 1950 with no Hiroshima?

Yes, most certainly.

Prior to FDR's death and thanks to Fuchs, Halls, and dozens of others, Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than Vice President Truman did.

zert · Oct 24, 2013

Could a nuclear exchange come about over China/Korea? If so would Europe get caught up from the expansion of the War in the East?

usertron2020 · Oct 24, 2013

Madoc said:
<snip>
It'd then be an open question whether the Soviets would turn over any of their nukes to the North Koreans (1) to return the favor against the UN troops as they approached the Yalu. Even for Stalin and Mao, that might've been a bit much. Perhaps just loudly hinting that such a turn over was about to take place might have done the trick instead.

I'd imagine it wouldn't be until the late 50's (2) that the realization would begin to dawn about the downsides of atomic warfare. This, as American and South Korean forces began to realize all the radiation damage their bomb use had done.

1) The idea that Stalin would "hand over" his nukes to any other power is batshit insane. Especially to a bunch of people who ARE batshit insane.

ALso, if USSR A-Bomb production was anything like the USA's, they would only have had a tiny handful at most by the time the UN forces finished closing up to the Yalu River. Against the arsenal the USA already had by this time, the Soviets only got away with a deterrent that was based on a massive strategic bluff.

2) The governments knew the truth long long before the late 50's. It was the general populace back home on the USA who by that time finally stopped believing the lies being told about the "safeness" of above-the-ground atomic testing.

LHB said:
The Korean War might not even happen as it did OTL, no proven nuclear arsenal for the US is going to change some of the dynamics pretty drastically going into the Cold War. For one Stalin might be a bit less restrained in pursuing his agenda thanks to no American superweapon.

And just imagine the impact on the whole dynamic if the first battlefield use ends up being a Soviet weapon produced after the war

No. The strategic imbalance in nukes between the USA and the USSR was bad enough as it was. Add on Stalin's genuine abhorrence for nukes (based on his inability to absolutely control the outcome of the usage), and a Soviet First Strike really isn't in the cards.

TO91320 said:
I think war crimes credibility was firmly established with the Tokyo fire bombing. Even McNamara thought so.

McNamara is not the best of sources.

And if indiscriminately bombing cities (or towns or villages) constitutes war crimes, then that makes war criminals of every medium and heavy bomber crew in World War 2

Its a lot easier to make those kinds of charges now that those veterans are now almost entirely deceased. And when you are talking about not your grandfathers, but your great-great-grandfathers, gone before you or perhaps even your parents were born!

I wonder how many modern day Chinese, Koreans, Indonesians, Malaysians, and Burmese would wax indignant about the use of the Bomb?

sloreck said:
<snip>

Rain all you want, but don't be surprised if all you see in reaction is the opening of a lot of umbrellas.

The present day international nature of AH plus the 20:21 hindsight employed on the usage of the Bomb plus PC plus the lingering effects of 45 years of Cold War propaganda plus in likewise lockstep modern day Anti-American propaganda mean that the modern consensus you will face here will be no different than what I read years ago of "history's judgement" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as related in "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia". You can imagine what the writers there had to say.

Flubber said:
Yes, most certainly.

Prior to FDR's death and thanks to Fuchs, Halls, and dozens of others, Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than Vice President Truman did.

There was a copied down to the thumbtacks version of the Fat Man Bomb sitting in Russia the day Nagasaki was hit. It only lacked enriched plutonium.

usertron2020 · Oct 24, 2013

zert said:
Could a nuclear exchange come about over China/Korea? If so would Europe get caught up from the expansion of the War in the East?

I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head for 1950, but the USA had done Trinity in mid-1945, had 12 nukes in 1947, and at least 200 nukes by the time the Korean War ended. The USSR had its first test in late-1949, so by the time Korea would have been overrun (end of 1950), the Soviets wouldn't have had much in the cupboard, not been in much of a position, to launch a successful atomic war. Again, it was all about bluffing.

But then, if Truman was ordering MacArthur NOT to bomb the Yalu River bridges (1), then certainly using nukes on the Chinese Army would be pretty ASB.

1) Just about the only thing IMVHO MacArthur was ever right about when disagreeing with his superiors.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm talking about MacArthur being right about using conventional aerial bombing of the Yalu River bridges, I don't support any insane ideas he may have ever had (or didn't have) regarding using nukes.

zert · Oct 24, 2013

usertron2020 said:
I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head for 1950, but the USA had done Trinity in mid-1945, had 12 nukes in 1947, and at least 200 nukes by the time the Korean War ended. The USSR had its first test in late-1949, so by the time Korea would have been overrun (end of 1950), the Soviets wouldn't have had much in the cupboard, not been in much of a position, to launch a successful atomic war. Again, it was all about bluffing.

But then, if Truman was ordering MacArthur NOT to bomb the Yalu River bridges (1), then certainly using nukes on the Chinese Army would be pretty ASB.

1) Just about the only thing IMVHO MacArthur was ever right about when disagreeing with his superiors.

I hear you but without their use in WW2 and their use in Korea, I will wonder if combat would be contained to the East.

usertron2020 · Oct 24, 2013

zert said:
I hear you but without their use in WW2 and their use in Korea, I will wonder if combat would be contained to the East.

Difficult to say. Stalin was getting to the point of believing his Jewish Doctors (Plot) were trying to kill him (not unusual for senior citizens in a nursing home, I can tell you). And with his lifestyle, Stalin BELONGED in a nursing home by November of 1950!

wcv215 · Oct 24, 2013

sloreck said:
I hate to rain on the moonbat's parade, but the number of deaths if the bombs are not dropped will most certainly exceed the roughly 200,000-225,000 that died in those two cities. Yes, those people won't die but others will in other Japanese cities, civilians in occupied countries, as well as both Allied and Japanese soldiers who will be die and be injured as the fighting continues past the middle of August (oh and don't forget the Russians and Koreans who will die as well). So - no way the net human cost is decreased by not dropping the bombs, as the war will not end when it did OTL.

In addition to further Japanese casualties it should also be noted then tens of thousands of Chinese were dying every day because quite a bit of the IJA was still in China at the time. Add this to the fact that without the atomic bomb both cities are going to get thoroughly firebombed and you are looking at far more than 225,000 casualties before the war ends.

Librarian · Oct 24, 2013

wcv215 said:
In addition to further Japanese casualties it should also be noted then tens of thousands of Chinese were dying every day because quite a bit of the IJA was still in China at the time. Add this to the fact that without the atomic bomb both cities are going to get thoroughly firebombed and you are looking at far more than 225,000 casualties before the war ends.

Firebombing wreaked havoc on Japan, but by this point they were able to evacuate properly. The casualties would be lesser.

China would have time to launch its planned offensive and push them to the sea: By this point the nationalists were well equipped enough to start regularly winning battles, which they did. The Japanese were starting to launch mass executions of entire villages again, though, which is something they'd calmed down on doing since 1943.

Simreeve · Oct 24, 2013

sloreck said:
The USSR attacking Japan in August, 1945, will not cause Japan to surrender. The USSR may be able to assault the Ryukus

Don't you mean the Kurils?

usertron2020 · Oct 24, 2013

Librarian said:
Firebombing wreaked havoc on Japan, but by this point they were able to evacuate properly. The casualties would be lesser. (1)

China would have time to launch its planned offensive and push them to the sea: By this point the nationalists were well equipped enough to start regularly winning battles, which they did. (2) The Japanese were starting to launch mass executions of entire villages again, (3) though, which is something they'd calmed down on doing since 1943.

1) Not much lesser. Japan is a pretty crowded place when you consider its land mass versus population. There is only so many places people can go, so many resources available for moving very many people, and how are they going to feed them separated from national food distribution networks? Japan is a series of islands, not a geographically integrated land mass.

2) Well, they were gaining ground, anyway. The IJA were deliberately withdrawing to the coast of their own volition to consolidate their forces in the expectation of a possible amphibious operation by the US. If the US ever gets a major port up and running AND links up with the KMT, then you will see the IJA ground up in China, not before. This doesn't include of course the potential of the Red Army driving south out of freshly conquered Manchuria.

But the KMT driving out the IJA all on its own in a timely manner? Like, by the summer of 1946? No. The IJA would be too strengthened on the coast and wouldn't in fact be facing any invasion by the US.

3) Well, if they are doing that, then in an extended campaign beyond OTL VJ-Day may see that at the hands of a vengeful KMT Army surrender may not be an option for the IJA, unless they turn themselves over to the tender mercies of Marshal Zhukov!

Simreeve said:
Don't you mean the Kurils?

Of course he does. The Ryukus by this time were already cleared by the US in the Okinawa Campaign.

Sabot Cat · Oct 24, 2013

sloreck said:
I hate to rain on the moonbat's parade, but the number of deaths if the bombs are not dropped will most certainly exceed the roughly 200,000-225,000 that died in those two cities. Yes, those people won't die but others will in other Japanese cities, civilians in occupied countries, as well as both Allied and Japanese soldiers who will be die and be injured as the fighting continues past the middle of August (oh and don't forget the Russians and Koreans who will die as well). So - no way the net human cost is decreased by not dropping the bombs, as the war will not end when it did OTL.

I was following OP, who said that the war ended around the same time but with no nukes. However, I disagree. If the Postdam Declaration explicitly stated that the U.S. would retain the Emperor during Japanese surrender, they would have surrendered earlier as they had already been sending peace feelers to Russia in July.

Secondly, if you want to call the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime, feel free - but they were no better or worse than the fire bombings of many other Japanese cities. The only difference was instead of a large number of B-29's dropping incendiaries, you had one plane drop a BIG bomb. It is probable that the largest firebombing of Tokyo, by conventional means, produced more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I don't want to start a flame war, merely point out that area bombing of cities (done by all combatants who could in WWII) is equally moral or immoral and is not tied to high explosives, incendiaries, or atomic weapons.

True! They're all war crimes, and horrendous.

As far as the main thread goes - The USSR attacking Japan in August, 1945, will not cause Japan to surrender. The USSR may be able to assault the Ryukus but they simply don't have the amphibious capability to land anywhere truly important - and they can't go for the islands until they have made some progress in Manchuria & Korea. So, no atomic bombing means Olympic & Coronet plans go through unless they get the bomb before the first assault. If the invasion is still going on, but Japan has not surrendered expect the bomb to be used tactically.

Why though? The Japanese were being subject to a crippling naval blockade and aerial firebombing campaign that would have made a ground invasion pointless. From what I can glean from military officials at the time, the atomic bombing was unnecessary. At the very least, they could've bombed a large forest near Tokyo to demonstrate the power of the bomb without killing anyone, or bomb the cities while giving a warning to the civilians in them first.

Aley · Oct 24, 2013

In my alternative https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=280478
to war is over three months earlier, so that the United States did not have time to use the atomic bomb against Japan. In this case, they are likely to be applied during the Korean War. Pyongyang will be destroyed, or other more profitable purpose?