Did the atomic bombs really convince Japan to surrender?

[Lion IRC]

I think the American le@dership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

Edit to kill playsushi
No sushi allowed in this thread

[Feck]

Huh. The multi-faceted explanation does seem to fit, but you'd think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've been sufficient. Then there's the timing. *BOOM* Surrender or we'll drop another......*BOOM* Surrender or we'll drop another....*OK, wait!* Too simplistic?

Was that a message to the Russians look this was no accident ...we can do it to ANY city BOOM Nagasaki ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

[Ian]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

That applies to everyone else as well. "Scaring the Russians" probably wasn't a driving factor either, but I'm sure Truman considered it a useful bonus.

[Lion IRC]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

You really dont think the US wanted a little payback? Maybe they just couldnt resist taking fatboy for a test drive in real life.
BTW - I dont think the "vast majority" of ordinary Japanese civilians were in any position to "discount reports" about the bomb. The Japanese political/military establishment wasnt accountable to anyone. Their unconditional "surrender" came after Japan had been mortally wounded not before and as such wasnt really a loss of face.

[owtth]

You really dont think the US wanted a little payback? Maybe they just couldnt resist taking fatboy for a test drive in real life.
BTW - I dont think the "vast majority" of ordinary Japanese civilians were in any position to "discount reports" about the bomb. The Japanese political/military establishment wasnt accountable to anyone. Their unconditional "surrender" came after Japan had been mortally wounded not before and as such wasnt really a loss of face.

What we need here is some old Japanese dude to tell us how it went down. That's not likely to happen. My own view is that payback did not enter into the equation. It may have given a certain ancillary attraction but it was not a driving force behind the bombing. The bombing was a major strategic change, one bomb wipes out a city, nothing like this has been seen before, the power was brain numbing. Today's society sees the use of nuclear arms as anathema nothing could be worse, at the time it was merely a new weapon, a fantastic new weapon.
The threat of Armageddon was far from the minds of most Americans at the time and the use of the countries best weapon was entirely justified in light of the terrible losses suffered by the US troops thus far. To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force, but I grew up under the threat of all out nuclear war. The global bogeyman was the nuclear warhead, it's changed a bit but those weapons haven't gone away. We may not live under fear of of WWIII, but the danger that terrified us then is the same now as it was in those days

[Robert_S]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

[Don't Panic]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

Even at that it was no more damage than they could have inflicted with conventional bombs, except for the radiation and I don't think the long term implications of that were fully understood at the time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

You really dont think the US wanted a little payback? Maybe they just couldnt resist taking fatboy for a test drive in real life.

I'm good with my call on that. We'd done all kind of damage to Japan already. If you have a different take, please provide sources.

BTW - I dont think the "vast majority" of ordinary Japanese civilians were in any position to "discount reports" about the bomb. The Japanese political/military establishment wasnt accountable to anyone. Their unconditional "surrender" came after Japan had been mortally wounded not before and as such wasnt really a loss of face.

Why not?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

My rule to was to kill people a lot. Without wasting time or ammo, of course.

[Don't Panic]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

My rule to was to kill people a lot. Without wasting time or ammo, of course.

Sounds like the only rule that counts during wartime.

Silent enim leges inter arma rings as true now as it did when it was first committed to paper.

[Robert_S]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

My rule to was to kill people a lot. Without wasting time or ammo, of course.

Sounds like the only rule that counts during wartime.

Silent enim leges inter arma rings as true now as it did when it was first committed to paper.

The US already demonstrated it could level a city, that did not end the war. We demonstrated we could mass produce levelled cities, that seems to have done it.

[Don't Panic]

To my own mind it was a disproportionate use of force,

In all-out war, that's a good thing. Perhaps you mean gratuitous use of force.

My rule to was to kill people a lot. Without wasting time or ammo, of course.

Sounds like the only rule that counts during wartime.

Silent enim leges inter arma rings as true now as it did when it was first committed to paper.

The US already demonstrated it could level a city, that did not end the war. We demonstrated we could mass produce levelled cities, that seems to have done it.

So, they used the minimum necessary force required to achieve the objective.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The US already demonstrated it could level a city, that did not end the war. We demonstrated we could mass produce levelled cities, that seems to have done it.

Perhaps you might want to read Japan's Longest Day.

[Robert_S]

The US already demonstrated it could level a city, that did not end the war. We demonstrated we could mass produce levelled cities, that seems to have done it.

Perhaps you might want to read Japan's Longest Day.

I can put it an the list...

But for now, do you think I'm way off with the ease of levelling cities hypothesis?