WI: United States Uses Atomic Bomb On Demonstration Island First

What if the United States did use the atomic bomb on a demonstration island as a warning to Japan to surrender before using it on an actual city?
 
The Japanese almost didn't surrender after two cities actually were destroyed in quick succession. Wasting one of only two potentially war-winning weapons on "demonstrations" was not a recipe for bringing the fighting to a swift end.
 
Agreed: What was needed were the dual elements of shock and surprise. Both of which go away with a demonstration shot. Not to mention the chance that the demonstration shot may be a dud. SECWAR Stimson's Interim Committee considered a demonstration, but rejected it on Oppenheimer's advice. (Correctly, IMHO)
 
OTOH, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not attract as much moral outrage if a demonstration bomb was used and failed, as it would vindicate the idea that only targeting a city would get the Japanese to surrender.
 
OTOH, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not attract as much moral outrage if a demonstration bomb was used and failed, as it would vindicate the idea that only targeting a city would get the Japanese to surrender.

Yeah, but most of that moral outrage developed later. Aside from the Vatican, which apparently issued a letter decrying the deployment of nuclear weapons, everyone was ecstatic. I remember reading that apparently a poll by some magazine indicated that a lot (like, more than 20%) of Americans wanted to drop even more bombs on the Japanese. That said, there was definitely censorship by the US, in particular of things like graphic footage of survivors that might have swayed opinion. And there were, of course, some scientists in the Manhattan Project who spoke against the use of atomic weapons even as they developed them.

But for the most part, criticism of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't start until well after the general anti-nuclear movement got going, and, frankly, I'm not sure how much a demonstration first would sway them, particularly considering how opposed much of the movement was to any nuclear technology, including tests and power generation.

It's very easy to forget how different people were thinking at the time and back-project modern sensibilities onto combatants in WWII. Don't forget that the public at the time cheered the wholesale firebombing of German and Japanese cities at the time, and if there was famously some unease among British elites over the bombing of Dresden, the Chief Air Marshall wrote a rebuttal to that saying that he considered it to be hypocritical and having more to do with Dresden's mythical position in European culture than with anything to do with the deaths of thousands of Germans. Churchill circulated a memo that was basically a spineless act of ass-covering, recouching the issue in terms of some sort of cold-hearted efficiency instead of a humanitarian plea.

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies. ... We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort.

The point here being less what Churchill actually thought, and more that the contemporary environment was such that a Prime Minister speaking against wanton destruction got successfully shouted down by the head of his Air Force. Even if Truman had been against the bombings (he wasn't), or Stimson had been (he wasn't), MacArthur, LeMay, and Arnold are all going to be clamoring to do them anyway, and most of their subordinates are likely to support them.

It's like, I dunno, people today (and, honestly, since immediately after WWI) decried and decry the use of gas during WWI, but at the time both sides embraced its use quite enthusiastically (and this despite it being against the Hague Convention!).
 
The Japanese almost didn't surrender after two cities actually were destroyed in quick succession. Wasting one of only two potentially war-winning weapons on "demonstrations" was not a recipe for bringing the fighting to a swift end.

There was a Plutonium core for a third bomb enroute to Tinian in August, material for a fourth was being shaped for the cores. Material for two more would have been ready & to Tinian NLT Oct - Dec. Altogether five Plutonium bombs could have been ready for use in 1945. The Haniford reactors were originally intended to produce suffcient for 36 cores in 1946, but during the design & construction the goals were scaled back. Rhoades: 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' estimated at least 18 cores could have been prepared in 1946, tho more may have been possible. After Japan surrendered the breeder reactors at Haniford were shut down to be reworked & hasty war time construction improved, so it is tough to say where the actual Plutonium production for late 45 or 46 would have reached.

Dont have any info on the possibility of building any other Uranium bombs in 1945.
 
At the Time

It -- bombing Japanese cities -- seemed the logical thing to do.

For a long time, until a near-religious hysteria pushed the Bad Bombs mantra, an atomic bomb was seen as little more than a frightfully big explosion, accompanied with some nasty side-effects. (Yes, the sickness of some at Los Alamos as well as cautionary information since Madame Curie pointed to dangers of radiation, so whey weren't naïf stupes.)

Since "the world" was already aware of nasty side-effects from anthrax to firebombing to sarin, the whole atomic thing was seen as simply another cost of doing war. It wasn't until "world opinion" became important to politicians that the Bomb became a Bad Thing. (And, yes, Dr. Strangelove had a lot to do with it being popularized.)
 
The Japanese most certainly will not surrender after a demonstration. If Hirohito is impressed and realizes what will happen if it is really used, and begins to push for surrender it is entirely possible that the coup that was hastily planned and executed (and failed) will have a little more time to percolate and be successful. This means the fight to the death crowd runs things in the emperor's name and/or he is replaced by his more malleable brother due to "illness" or even claiming his was killed in a raid which would piss off the average Japanese.

The most likely scenario is that at least one city is bombed, maybe two to get the point across. The end of the war is delayed by a few weeks perhaps a month or more. The delay of the end of the war means more people die than OTL even if Japan surrenders after 2 bombs. That is the best case scenario. Worst case is the true fanatics take over and the war continues with either an invasion of Japan or starvation blockade or some combination of the above which means potentially of millions of people die over and above the casualties of OTL along with lots of other secondary effects.

If Japan surrendered after the demonstration, which I regard as highly unlikely almost ASB, the idea that atomic weapons are just "bigger bombs with bigger booms" may linger. The graphic effects of atomic weapons on a city and the people in it after Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather quickly fostered the attitude that these were not something to be used short of total desperation. Absent this strategic mindset they might have been used in Korea which could have led to a real WWIII.
 
Top