WI Enola Gay was shot down

Harsh, guy.

By that point in the war, the United States could've done whatever it liked. Obviously, there was still a second nuke chilling in the Pacific, ready to go, and more on the way, eventually. The conventional bombing campaign could've continued till there were no Japanese cities left--after all, nuclear weapons weren't the only way the US was destroying cities in Japan. The US could have invaded, though why, at that point, they would have is beyond me. The US could have accepted Japaneses attempts at surrendering with the caveat that Emperor Hirohito would not be prosecuted for war crimes (which is what ended up happening anyway). The US literally could have blockaded Japan until everyone starved to death, though this probably would've taken some time and been unpopular with a war-weary public (not to mention the negative image evoked by starving a country to death).

So, ultimately, not a lot different happens. Japan loses, almost assuredly in 1945, the second nuke makes the impression on the Soviets anyway and some random guy's mom isn't remembered for all time as the chick whose name was on the plane that nuked Hiroshima.
Anything besides the atomic bombings or an acceptance of the conditional surrender will likely end up with a Japanese civil war, btw. IIRC, the Emperor was afraid that his people (war weary, starving and filled with malaise as they were) would revolt against the government if the war dragged on any further. That not being a revolution against the Emperor himself (which would considered heresy) but one against the military regime and the government around the Emperor. That would distract Japanese war efforts further (by now, the military was a joke anyway. You can't launch planes without fuel, can't fly them without pilots, can't shoot guns without bullets, and can't have mechanized warfare without the anything mechanical running or fuel to run it. And there was a malaise within the soldiers which belied the "you die GI!" mentality), and keep the populace from slitting it's throats at the US menace long enough for America to gain their trust in the post war occupation, but it'd be rather messy.
 
Assuming the Japanese knew the Enola Gay was carrying "the bomb" they could have made an attempt to intercept it and shoot it down. Their air defense system was in very bad shape, never was good, and they had a limited number of fighters that could attack a B-29 at that altitude. AAA was a non-starter.

The Japanese were very used to limited B-29 flights every day over Japan for photo recon & weather recon and did not attempt to intercept them to husband resources for attacks that actually dropped bombs. According to survivor accounts from Hiroshima, most folks did not bother to go to shelters because they what saw was just 3 a/c and assumed it was just another recon flight, another daily visit from B-san.

If the first attack doesn't work, then the bomb that was dropped 2 days later is still dropped. BTW the Enola Gay bomb was not armed until the plane was airborne and therefore at worst a crash would detonate the conventional explosives and spread radioactive materiel around the end of the runway (or where ever the crash was)
 
Someone wrote an excellent short story about what would happen if the Enola Gay Crashed on takeoff. It's called The Lucky Strike, the premise is that the bombardier for the back up plane is sick of the war. He figures he won't be able to live with himself if he destroys Hiroshima so he drops the bomb eleven miles before he was supposed to, and completely misses the city. Then they have this huge fight on the plane about whether or not it was on porpuse.

While deliberately killing thousands of civilians, even in a war, is undoubtedly a bad thing, that story all works out too neatly: No Hiroshima. Japan surrenders anyway. The cold war never turns even mildly hot, and before too long the superpowers agree to abolish all nuclear weapons, join hands and simg kumbya. It's like a pacificists wet dream - "dropping the bomb was both morally and politically wrong, therefore not dropping it would automatically lead to a better result".

In reality, the world is more complex than that, and doing bad things (like dropping an a-bomb on civilians) lead to both good and bad results, and doing good things (like not dropping an a-bomb on civilians) leads to both good and bad results.

There are other variants on similar things, including I think some by the same author, and some by other things, which are more chaotic, and I would argue possibly more plausible.

One has nukes being used left right and and centre, after WW2.

Another I think has the US blowing up a demonstration bomb on an uninhabited island - and Japanese militarists seeing the bomb's power, but the US's lack of stomach to use it, deciding to fight on regardless of how many bombs are dropped on them

etc.
 
If the first attack doesn't work, then the bomb that was dropped 2 days later is still dropped.
Hum, and what if
(to exaust the possibilities)
the second bomb is then dropped and IS a dud?

I know, I know. But no design is truly dud-proof.
What then?
 
Top