WI The Japanese don't surrender.

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wouldn't it make sense to take it -on top- of the buildup of the other invasions? It denies Japanese resources of those islands and the possibility that the Soviets might take it. Plus the phycological impact of having taken one of the home islands.


Hokkaido is strategically useless to the U.S. The U.S. would, if needed, have taken the Island if the Japanese Government had managed to retreat there instead of surrendering, but otherwise it was quite literally not worth the effort.
 

Lux

Banned
I don't know if this has been said but in short, what Japanese?


Oh those guys on that barren island. Yeah, survivors they are in such a wasteland. Well, that's why we try to avoid a nuclear war, Jimmy, or else the whole world ends up like Japan.

And this is the Good ending. The one with survivors with a sense of national identity.

I will not explain further. I don't care if you admin demands it, this thread caught my attention but then it sickened my to think about it so I realy would rather avoid the details. I will read the thread but please don't ask me to explain this. I could but I don't want to appear like a psychopathic blood thirsty bastard.
 
Then what are you arguing about?
As for the bolded part, just because they have a little better chance of doing better doesn't mean you know, millions upon millions would die.

I was merely saying that the people being driven to cannibalism would be unlikely because they have a better chance of doing better.

I know that millions would die. Did I ever say that the Japanese would have an easy time with it? My grandparents lived through American bombings during WWII. My grandmother lived in a cave with her siblings and ate rats while my grandfather fought for the IJA. I know what that time period was like. I also know that people will usually try almost everything before they resort to cannibalism.

As for nuclear winter, I had no idea how many nukes the U.S. had prepared/was capable of using. That was merely a speculation on my part. I guess nuclear autumn is a better term for what I meant. By nuclear winter, I meant a small drop in temperatures over the northern half of the world, which is I think is possible when you add the soot from firebombing. 1 degree or less can mean a slightly cooler and wetter spring with higher crop losses from disease.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear Winter is up for debate in terms of its effects. Krakatoa, in 1883, blasted something like 5 Cubic Miles of Ash into the atmosphere; this caused a dip in temperature of roughly 1.2 degrees C with a five year gap to normalcy.

One thing I'd consider seriously about nuclear weapons is that exaggerating their effects to make their use less likely may be a deliberate aim.

---

There is one point I'd insist on: Japan is no position to resist as is being speculated here. The Landing on the Beaches would be brutal, but it would also be final. Operation Downfall assumes that Japanese Morale would hold up in the face of the massive bombardment, starvation and privation being forced on a people.

Once the landings on Kyushu are hammered through, the case for surrender is impossible to ignore. It is one thing to face near starvation, another entirely to face the consequences. Millions are dying; what advantage does further resistance hold? Kyushu would have most of the IJA's last ability to resist--and probably against the wrong foe. The Soviets remember 1903, and their revenge will be dark and terrible...

The landings in 1946 will be the last great fight of WW2; all the cards will come to play: The USA's use of its nuclear arsenal, Japan's final deployment of its Kamikaze and Kaiten forces.
 
Top