First atomic bomb dropped on Mt. Fuji

Wow, actual numbers! Thanks. That's a bit more cratering than I had expected, but on second thought, I should have expected something more like this.

Also note that those numbers assume a flat surface, whereas alot of the blast at the top of Fuji would be able to escape down as well as up and sideways. Yet another minor reduction.

I should also have pointed out that there are VERY large error bars on these figures. Also, this data is based on thirty years of nuclear tests, including the Plowshare nuclear cratering experiments. The Manhattan Project in 1945 is going to have no way to accurately estimate the size of the crater.
 
Again, the Americans already had this ability conventionally, and the Japanese had no effective counter measures against it.
The fact remains that you are using a single crew, and a single bomb, to do a job that would normally require hundreds of bombers, and tens of thousands of bombs. Its the Psychological Impact that matters the most, not so much the end result of the bombing itself.
In the knowledge that they would be defeated inevitably.
Considering the state of the Japanese mindset, I highly doubt it. Even if they did, it is still an enemy they can fight on the ground, and until they made it to Honshu they would be a non-factor considering the Imperial Command, for whatever reason, had written off Hokkaido. However by that point use of Atomic Weapons on Japan would be, liberal to say the least.
 
The fact remains that you are using a single crew, and a single bomb, to do a job that would normally require hundreds of bombers, and tens of thousands of bombs. Its the Psychological Impact that matters the most, not so much the end result of the bombing itself.

You can't seriously be saying that that the psychological impact of only one bomber is more serious than a destroyed city?

Considering the state of the Japanese mindset, I highly doubt it. Even if they did, it is still an enemy they can fight on the ground, and until they made it to Honshu they would be a non-factor considering the Imperial Command, for whatever reason, had written off Hokkaido.


They had written off Hokkaido because they knew that the war was lost anyway if the Soviets got involved. However, Japan can't cope with the loss of Hokkaido and it's agriculture the Japanese would face famine within weeks. There were also little forces on Honshu, especially in the north.

However by that point use of Atomic Weapons on Japan would be, liberal to say the least.
It depends on the time frame but considering the speed of the production program that's going to be unlikely by the time the Soviets have occupied Hokkaido.
 
I've long thought that a purely military target, such as the naval base at Kure, would have been a more ethical and yet very effective use of the Bomb.

There would likely be civilian casualties, but nothing like at Hiroshima proper or Nagasaki.
 
You can't seriously be saying that that the psychological impact of only one bomber is more serious than a destroyed city?
The psychological impact of a single bomber destroying an entire city, not one or the other exclusively.

They had written off Hokkaido because they knew that the war was lost anyway if the Soviets got involved. However, Japan can't cope with the loss of Hokkaido and it's agriculture the Japanese would face famine within weeks. There were also little forces on Honshu, especially in the north.
They were going to face famine anyhow given the destruction of their logistics network by Strategic Bombing, among other things.
It depends on the time frame but considering the speed of the production program that's going to be unlikely by the time the Soviets have occupied Hokkaido.
The Soviet Invasion was originally set in August, but was delayed until sometime in the next Summer given to concerns regarding logistics for the force involved. Considering the state of the Japanese forces there, this shouldn't have been a concern, but then Hindsight is 20/20 and the Soviets expected a more legitimate defense than was there.

The minimum of Atomic Production was (3) per month by August, so there would at least be (7) more locations hit by the end of October.
 
The psychological impact of a single bomber destroying an entire city, not one or the other exclusively.

The Japanese were shrugging off having their cities devastated, if psychological impact was what caused them to surrender then they would done so long beforehand.

The Soviet Invasion was originally set in August, but was delayed until sometime in the next Summer given to concerns regarding logistics for the force involved. Considering the state of the Japanese forces there, this shouldn't have been a concern, but then Hindsight is 20/20 and the Soviets expected a more legitimate defense than was there.


It was actually ready to go by September, Stalin briefly considered going ahead with it despite the fact that Japan had surrendered to the Allies.

The minimum of Atomic Production was (3) per month by August, so there would at least be (7) more locations hit by the end of October.

Conventional raids would have done more damage then. Also, the US would likely be beginning to keep bombs in reserve.
 
The Japanese were shrugging off having their cities devastated, if psychological impact was what caused them to surrender then they would done so long beforehand.
Read the posts of mcdo and I. We've explained this already.
 
I always felt that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where terror bombings. But the USA was not filthy of terror bombing the Japanese into submission.

Nowadays terror bombing is considderd a warcrime. But in WWII it was quite common

Against an enemy like Japan, who wasn't going to surrender because of loss of territory or loss of lives, terror bombing them into submission seems the only logical alternative. Since fireboming didn't help, sending 1 lone bomber to drop a bomb that destroys a city would be a good way of forcing the surrender. However, it has to be a city or the 'terror' portion of it will be lost, and that what the Japanese government and population needed to feel. If you drop it on a military complex, the Japanese won't see it as a display of power but just a strategical attack, one of many.

The option without terror would be the invasion of Japan itself. I once made a thread about that. Since then, though i despise terror bombing, after all i've read about the planned invasion of the Japanese homeislands and how far the Americans and Japanese where planning to go i would rather see 2 cities filled with civilians(and some POWs) destroyed by nuclear bombs then that. Everybody would. The loss of life would be unmeasurable, it would have changed the face of the war in ways even 10 nuclear bombs couldn't.

Even, i would rather see them dropping biological weapons and kill the population undiscriminatly then see Operation Downfall into motion.

In the end i believe no that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the people of Japan(and the USA) a lot of pain and suffering. Dropping the bombs on a mountain, forest or military target only endangers that fact.
 
Top