FDR lives through all of 1945, test-explodes atomic bomb off Japanese coast.

Trinity%20Test%20Shot%20.025%20Sec%20July%2016%201945.jpg

The “Trinity” Test.
south of Los Alamos, New Mexico, July 16, 1945

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/trinity-test-1945

I don’t know. Seems pretty impressive to me! And combined with matter-of-fact, middle-of-the-road negotiations.

And there's this image:

4e279f80-hiroshima.JPG


And this almost didn't work, as mentioned, attempted coup.

I hear what you're saying, but the Japanese leadership were not the most... Logical people. They could argue that what they were seeing was some form of deception and come to the conclusion "If they have this bomb, why haven't they used it?" sort of dealio.

There's less room for denial when your city is in ruins and thousands are dying of an unknown poison.

I mean, Japan took two direct hits from the atomic bombs and still wasn't quite enough. There was an expectation within the senior leadership that mass civilian casualties were inevitable and acceptable.

You are dealing with a clique of men who are driven by grim fanaticism that didn't want to negotiate to surrender, they still thought there was a chance at negotiating some sort of peace that recognized their Empire, not just the Emperor. They

But to not ruin your OP maybe there's other targets that aren't cities? Like big naval formation or ground troop concentrations away from the cities? Or what about if America nukes Germany instead? The Japanese are witness to the destruction without being the subject of it? Perhaps Germany is doing a bit better in 45 (somehow better performance in the East? idk) and American rolls out the A-Bombs against German targets, then they are like "Hey Japan see this pile of rubble, used to be Nuremberg, one bomb, give up or youre next"
 
Last edited:
Why are you assuming that the Americans would tell Japan that they had only a few bombs ready? . . .
You mean, run a poker bluff, and borrow from that most American of games? Yes, I’m in favor of.

However . . .
https://www.stripes.com/news/specia...rendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300

‘ . . . The war camp [within Japan] maintained that Japan must inflict tremendous damage on the Americans in order to win better terms than the “unconditional surrender” offered by President Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945. . . ’
That’s the problem. There’s a faction within Japan who desperately wants to believe we don’t have the stomach to finish the job or something of that sort.

We need to disabuse them of that idea.

That’s why we need one or several “unofficial” American negotiators informing them, Oh, by the way, if this thing drags on too long, us Americans executing the emperor is a very real possibility. We flash this Ace.

Actually, I think it has about a 50% chance of working, which I count as very good in ATL terms.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
FDR did not stop the firebombing of Tokyo which cost more lives than the Hiroshima bomb - why would he flinch from using the bomb as it was designed?
 
Here is something, how would the nuclear bomb be seen during the Korean War? Dien Bien Phu? Suez Canal Crisis? If anything will the scare of the device be present, or will it be expected to deal with the Cold War and Soviet expansion?
 
Rather seems like a negotiations opening, doesn’t it?



So, we use an intermediary, or “friend,” to let the Japanese know that if they go ahead and surrender, there’s a pretty good chance they can keep the emperor system, although no guarantees. On the other hand, if they wait too long, there’s actually a reasonable chance the Emperor might find himself at the end of a rope.

And the “unofficial” U.S. negotiator does this with the level of directness, or indirectness, which he or she judges to give us a fair to middling chance.

And risk the IJA "kidnapping" the Emperor to the prepared Imperial Bunker/HQ and continue the war.


Why are you assuming that the Americans would tell Japan that they had only a few bombs ready? It's frankly preposterous to assert otherwise that the Japanese leadership would not immediately realized the significance of a single bomb being able to do the work of hundreds of bombers.


Presumably a demonstration would be carried out in such a way as to make it obvious that the explosion was caused by just a single bomb.

And there is also the fact that the idea of a nuclear bomb would not be outlandish for Japan. Their scientists already about the potential of building such bombs and had their nuclear bomb project. It would not be difficult to confirm what had happened.

Given that there were an attempted coup to stop the Imperial Broadcast of Surrender after the Japanese War Cabinet was informed by physicist that the explosion was caused by a single bomb , it is unlikely that such a demonstration would result in surrendering.
 
You mean, run a poker bluff, and borrow from that most American of games? Yes, I’m in favor of.

However . . .

That’s the problem. There’s a faction within Japan who desperately wants to believe we don’t have the stomach to finish the job or something of that sort.

We need to disabuse them of that idea.

That’s why we need one or several “unofficial” American negotiators informing them, Oh, by the way, if this thing drags on too long, us Americans executing the emperor is a very real possibility. We flash this Ace.

Actually, I think it has about a 50% chance of working, which I count as very good in ATL terms.

There were people who refuse to surrender after two atomic bombings. What makes you think the officer would not kidnapping the Emperor to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsushiro_Underground_Imperial_Headquarters and continues the war?

These people may also think in the worse case, the Emperor should die by seppuku as the epitome of Japanese culture, no matter the emperor want it or not.
 
Japan had been in the middle of negotiations with the USA when they attacked Pearl Harbor sure they meant to declare war just before they attacked but there was some glitch but I don't think any American President after December 1941 would trust any Japan peace negotiations until they surrendered.

Also there were about 36,000 allied POWs in the Japanese home islands during the war about 3500 had already died if there was an invasion the rest would probably have been slaughtered.

While the Allied forces had island hopped through the Pacific to get to Japan there were vast areas of South East Asia from Burma to Korea that were still under their control with a 100,000 POWS in camps and civilians.

Yes the bombings were harsh but the USA was fighting a war and it was a case of amputating a limb to save the patient.
 
Anyone think you could get the Nazis to surrender with this tactic?

The Nazis as the existing power structure, no.
It could certainly convince some of its players that the existing power structure had to be changed - read: kill Hitler. Unfortunately, by May 1945 (and especially since July 1944) Hitler had become very wary of this danger and the job would not have been easy.
 
Last edited:
I would make the argument that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs didn't end WWII, what they did was horrify the world enough to prevent WWIII. No weapon has ever been invented that wasn't used, if they hadn't been used on Japan they'd have been used in Europe during the 50's.

An absolute staggering amount of weapons, particularly biological and chemical, have been invented and not used. Tons of naval vessels have never seen combat, as have millions of tanks and the such these days.

Many bad designs got invented and discarded without being used too.

No one has used hydrogen bombs.
 

DougM

Donor
If the US arranged a demonstration (somehow) this would just harden the Japanese.
First it will give then notice that it can happen thus removing the fear of the unknown. They will instantly know what destroyed any city hit.
Second it will warn them to not “trust” lone bombers of other small numbers of bombers. As many witnesses said after the fact they heard the bombers but did not worry as only a couple bombers was not anything to be worried about.
And my last point is that the Japanese military/government will view the test as evidence that the US is soft and weak.
Remember Japans whole theory of the war was that the US would give up. They didn’t think they could win, they thought the US would give up because the US was weak and soft and did not have the stomach to put up with the casualties. And this test is playing right into that belief .
Only “weaklings” would worry about killing the enemy so the US trying to avoid killing thousands with the bomb proves the the Japanese militants that the US does not have the stomach for the kind of fatalities that an invasion would take so thus the US is to Weak to invade the Home Islands. “Real men” Would have just dropped it on a city and to hell with the enemy casualties.
So personally I think that an attempt to demonstrate the Bomb is just going to make the war go on to the bitter end. You will see the starvation/bomb them to the stone age ending.
 
How would a demonstration even work? Would FDR send a facebook invite to the emperor and and his cabinet cordially inviting them to the atomic bomb demonstration and wait for them to accept, decline, or tentative? What would happen if the bomb didn’t go off. That would be a huge embarrassment to the Americans, or what if it didn’t go off and the Japanese got a hold of the bomb and reverse engineered it. That leaves the US with just one bomb. The whole point of US bombing Nagasaki right after Hiroshima was to give the illusion fo a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Also FDR started the manhattan project and would have been more than willing to Nuke Germany if it was available. Why is there this idea that he wouldn’t have nuked Japan as well?
 
What would happen if the bomb didn’t go off. That would be a huge embarrassment to the Americans,

Not going to happen. There were four radar altimetric fuzes, and just one had to work.
In the incredibly unlikely event that all four malfunction and the bomb does not explode at altitude, it falls to the ground. The acceleration is such that its parts collapse together. That is exactly the way in which these bombs worked: critical mass is reached. Now, naturally it's unlikely that the chain reaction caused in this way will achieve the expected and desired yield. It may range from something of a fizzle (just a few kilotons instead of some 20) to a very hot dirty dirty dirty bomb. In neither case do the Japanese get anything to work on.

or what if it didn’t go off and the Japanese got a hold of the bomb and reverse engineered it.

First, in the unlikely event that nothing of the above happens, what the Japanese would get would still be insanely unhealthy to work on. The most promising Japanese scientists fall ill, stop working, and slowly die.

In the unlikely event that the above does not hamper Japanese research, let's say they breeze through their lack of knowledge and do reverse-engineer the bomb. Now they know what's going to hit them (to a point, given that the first two designs were different). And...? How many years do you reckon they'll need to mine the ore, refine it, build the plants for enriching it, enrich it, and build their first device?

That leaves the US with just one bomb.

Well, no. The next one would be ready for use by August 19 or 20. Then three more in September.
 
I would make the argument that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs didn't end WWII, what they did was horrify the world enough to prevent WWIII. . .
Here is something, how would the nuclear bomb be seen during the Korean War? Dien Bien Phu? Suez Canal Crisis? . . .
This is perhaps the greatest challenge of all, including spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and probably ever other which way as well. Something clearly horrific, and yet, the idea that it helped to prevent even greater future horrors. And it's a big challenge largely because it is kind of true.

One answer is to work the hell out of the silver linings. Another answer is what we do here at AH — a good future need not be arrived at by only one path.

By the way, I think I have an idea of how to respectfully talk about genocide. Basically, we whittle it down by two thirds. For example, we might talk about a timeline in which the Nazi Holocaust only murders 2 million Jewish persons instead of 6 million. We would be painting a picture in which people are more proactive and on-the-ball, and probably luckier as well, but we're still acknowledging the full horrors of the Holocaust, because even a third is still a whole lot of people. And of course something similar with communists, trade unionists, mentally ill persons, gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, and others

No, this doesn't directly pertain to the topic at hand, but I often reason by analogy, and am sometimes able to wind my wind to pretty good solutions, sometimes not.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
There was an attempted coup?
Oh yeah. The IJA really wasn't keen on surrendering. Not to mention that the IJA officer corps had just spent the last couple decades actively subverting the chain of command by executing anyone above them who didn't agree with them. The Army tried to place the Emperor "in seclusion" and continue the war in his name.
 
This is perhaps the greatest challenge of all, including spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, and probably ever other which way as well. Something clearly horrific, and yet, the idea that it helped to prevent even greater future horrors. And it's a big challenge largely because it is kind of true.

One answer is to work the hell out of the silver linings. Another answer is what we do here at AH — a good future need not be arrived at by only one path.

By the way, I think I have an idea of how to respectfully talk about genocide. Basically, we whittle it down by two thirds. For example, we might talk about a timeline in which the Nazi Holocaust only murders 2 million Jewish persons instead of 6 million. We would be painting a picture in which people are more proactive and on-the-ball, and probably luckier as well, but we're still acknowledging the full horrors of the Holocaust, because even a third is still a whole lot of people. And of course something similar with communists, trade unionists, mentally ill persons, gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, and others

No, this doesn't directly pertain to the topic at hand, but I often reason by analogy, and am sometimes able to wind my wind to pretty good solutions, sometimes not.
The problem seems to be that in hindsight we tend to second guess historical events, in the belief that they could have been better. The problem is that in the case of fanaticism, it can be argued that a fixed mindset has been established and that even the most rational and well-intentioned, well-informed will be ignored or disbelieved. This does beg the question, how would such actions be received and understood by future leaders?

Would the American press dub the nuclear threat as "FDR's folly?"

For instance would Truman be forced to use the bomb during the Korean War?
 
. . . why would he [FDR] flinch . . .
There were people who refuse to surrender after two atomic bombings. . .
Japan had been in the middle of negotiations with the USA when they attacked Pearl Harbor . .
If the US arranged a demonstration (somehow) this would just harden the Japanese. . .
How would a demonstration even work? Would FDR send a facebook invite to the emperor and and his cabinet cordially inviting . . .
<sigh> So I put up pictures of American gangsters (fictional) . . . all to no avail!

Yes, I realize that the Japanese militarists were hard cases.

If I had an opportunity to retitle this whole thread, it might be " . . realistic Mob-style threat to execute Emperor if war prolonged too much longer." But too late to change it now.

Yes, I do believe graphic demonstrations can be part of this. People might envision what to them is the worse possible outcome. And humans aren't logical with a strict hierarchy of threats/danger. And hard cases may tend to have a different hierarchy than us.
 

SsgtC

Banned
So, I put up pictures of American gangsters (fictional), all to no avail!

Yes, I realize that the Japanese militarists were hard cases.

If I had an opportunity to retitle this whole thread, it might be " . . realistic Mob-style threat to execute Emperor if war prolonged too much longer." But too late to change it now.

Yes, I do believe graphic demonstrations can be part of this. People might envision what to them is the worse possible outcome. And humans aren't logical with a strict hierarchy of threats/danger. And hard cases may tend to have a different hierarchy than us.
No offense, but what you're suggesting is "bad spy novel" fantasy-land fever dreams. Even if someone were to suggest such a thing, the only organized "mob" activity in Japan was the Yakuza. And they fully supported the war. Because it made them a lot of money. The American mob has no way to get any sort of message to the Japanese government. This isn't Italy/Sicily where the Italian mob was in the government and could influence policy.
 
Top