What difference would the bomb have made if Japan was not losing anyway?

This is almost ASB but WI either an A Bomb, a superfortress and a base withing range of at least a one way trip (perhaps with a plan to rescue the crew in the sea by submarine) had been available in the imediate aftermath of a clear Japanese victory at Midway.

Alternatively WI Japan had adopted better strategies and put more effort into material and still controlled large parts of China and the Phillipines in August 1945.

Assume the Atomic bomb is available would it change the war?

Could an atomic bomb of 1945 vintage have been used in any meaningful way on or withing say 50 miles of the battle field?
 
This is almost ASB but WI either an A Bomb, a superfortress and a base withing range of at least a one way trip (perhaps with a plan to rescue the crew in the sea by submarine) had been available in the imediate aftermath of a clear Japanese victory at Midway.

Alternatively WI Japan had adopted better strategies and put more effort into material and still controlled large parts of China and the Phillipines in August 1945.
Japan can at most delay the invevitable by a few months.
Assume the Atomic bomb is available would it change the war?
No, not much.
IRL the loss of the Kwantung Army, loss of the entire Navy, a starving civilian population, bombing at will by the Americans and two A-bombs was only barely enough to let the Japanese surrender.
That is, as long as you demand something like an unconditional surrender.

Could an atomic bomb of 1945 vintage have been used in any meaningful way on or withing say 50 miles of the battle field?
It's possible, a target for example could be to destroy an island base with a good defence and a large portion of the Japanese Navy in port.

I'd still think it's a better idea to let it explode over a city; the lack of precision won't matter much and there'll be plenty of targets spread out as long as the city is big enough.

Maybe a nuke on Tokyo and hope you take along a part of the Japanese Navy?
 
Top