Iran is Coming! -Derail Nuclear weapon discussion

[Rum]

Apologies if this has already been raised - too long a thread to check, but one 'good' thing about the use of the A bomb in 1945 (if 'good' is remotely appropriate) is that it actually happened. If it had not the world would not have witnessed the hell that nuclear weapons can unleash and it is possible that a real exchange between America and the USSR could have taken place in the late 50s say, because there was no first hand direct experience of the effects. It did, if nothing else, say 'look, this is the terrible thing this does'.

[klr]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

They got two demonstrations, if you could call them that. After Nagasaki*, they understood that the the US would not now need to invade, and so the Japanese would not have the chance of fighting them to a bloody standstill on Japanese soil, and thus get an "honourable" peace. That was the strategy of the Japanese hawks, which the US (via code-breaking) was aware of.

*Among other things, it was also argued that Hiroshima was a one-off, and that the US couldn't/wouldn't be able to do it again. And that it wasn't as "bad" as it seemed ...

Of course, starving the Japanese into submission* would also have very likely worked, if one thinks millions of deaths by starvation is a better option.

*Even more so than had already been done, and the US was on the point of ramping things up.

[Clinton Huxley]

Apologies if this has already been raised - too long a thread to check, but one 'good' thing about the use of the A bomb in 1945 (if 'good' is remotely appropriate) is that it actually happened. If it had not the world would not have witnessed the hell that nuclear weapons can unleash and it is possible that a real exchange between America and the USSR could have taken place in the late 50s say, because there was no first hand direct experience of the effects. It did, if nothing else, say 'look, this is the terrible thing this does'.

True enough but unlikely to have been part of the reasoning in 1945 - "we'll use this on the Japanese so no-one ever wants to do it again..."

[Clinton Huxley]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

They got two demonstrations, if you could call them that. After Nagasaki*, they understood that the the US would not now need to invade, and so the Japanese would not have the chance of fighting them to a bloody standstill on Japanese soil, and thus get an "honourable" peace. That was the strategy of the Japanese hawks, which the US (via code-breaking) was aware of.

*Among other things, it was also argued that Hiroshima was a one-off, and that the US couldn't/wouldn't be able to do it again. And that it wasn't as "bad" as it seemed ...

Of course, starving the Japanese into submission* would also have very likely worked, if one thinks millions of deaths by starvation is a better option.

*Even more so than had already been done, and the US was on the point of ramping things up.

I knew this would set you off...

I don't think I buy this, really. It posits that the Japanese would not have changed their mind after a demo. Why not do it? One demo - 2 weeks to think about it and f they decide to fight on, well, they can't say they weren't warned.

[Don't Panic]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

Wasn't a viable option at the time, the 3 bombs used up pretty much all the weapons grade material that was available at the time.

[klr]

Apologies if this has already been raised - too long a thread to check, but one 'good' thing about the use of the A bomb in 1945 (if 'good' is remotely appropriate) is that it actually happened. If it had not the world would not have witnessed the hell that nuclear weapons can unleash and it is possible that a real exchange between America and the USSR could have taken place in the late 50s say, because there was no first hand direct experience of the effects. It did, if nothing else, say 'look, this is the terrible thing this does'.

That certainly did happen, but it took a long time in some cases for it to be understood. To some, it was "just another weapon". General MacArthur railed against the bomb in 1945 because it denied him the chance to lead an invasion of Japan. But during the Korean War, he advocated it being used against the Chinese. For this and other belligerence, he got sacked by Truman.

A downside is that owing to the extraordinary nature of the Atomic bomb (esp. the scientific effort involved), the Japanese could and did rationalise to themselves that they hadn't really been "defeated". Thus they didn't absorb the wider lessons of the war and their own aggression as fully as (say) the Germans did.

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

They got two demonstrations, if you could call them that. After Nagasaki*, they understood that the the US would not now need to invade, and so the Japanese would not have the chance of fighting them to a bloody standstill on Japanese soil, and thus get an "honourable" peace. That was the strategy of the Japanese hawks, which the US (via code-breaking) was aware of.

*Among other things, it was also argued that Hiroshima was a one-off, and that the US couldn't/wouldn't be able to do it again. And that it wasn't as "bad" as it seemed ...

Of course, starving the Japanese into submission* would also have very likely worked, if one thinks millions of deaths by starvation is a better option.

*Even more so than had already been done, and the US was on the point of ramping things up.

I knew this would set you off...

I don't think I buy this, really. It posits that the Japanese would not have changed their mind after a demo. Why not do it? One demo - 2 weeks to think about it and f they decide to fight on, well, they can't say they weren't warned.

A serious historical point: You have to look at the way people were actually behaving at the time. It's hard today to credit just how incredibly pig-headed the Japanese were. Some Japanese would likely have wanted to surrender on any reasonable* terms, but they were in no position to win that argument before August 1945. A lot of others were quickly converted.

*Which is what they got. Although what some Japanese thought as reasonable was absolutely unacceptable to the allies. Also, (IIRC) the final terms offered to the Japanese on the 10th August were considered to be too lenient by some parties inside and outside the US.

[Clinton Huxley]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

Wasn't a viable option at the time, the 3 bombs used up pretty much all the weapons grade material that was available at the time.

If you can make 3 you can make 4. And if you do a demo, you could get away with only using one.

[Svartalf]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

Wasn't a viable option at the time, the 3 bombs used up pretty much all the weapons grade material that was available at the time.

3 bombs? Little boy, Fat man and Trinity?

[Rum]

Apologies if this has already been raised - too long a thread to check, but one 'good' thing about the use of the A bomb in 1945 (if 'good' is remotely appropriate) is that it actually happened. If it had not the world would not have witnessed the hell that nuclear weapons can unleash and it is possible that a real exchange between America and the USSR could have taken place in the late 50s say, because there was no first hand direct experience of the effects. It did, if nothing else, say 'look, this is the terrible thing this does'.

True enough but unlikely to have been part of the reasoning in 1945 - "we'll use this on the Japanese so no-one ever wants to do it again..."

I don't think 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) was even thought of as a strategy at the time (and a fucking crazy one it was when in place!), but certainly the Russians were part of the thinking as I am sure has been mentioned earlier. A 'demonstration' to them was very much part of the reason they used it as the Cold War got under way and tensions mounted in Germany with the ending of the European war.

[Jason]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

[Clinton Huxley]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

[Rum]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

OK - Iran is stinky! Discuss.

[Clinton Huxley]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

OK - Iran is stinky! Discuss.

I'd love it if diplomats spoke like that :

[Svartalf]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

seduce your wife so you get my French Pox, and then drown you under torrents of philosophy for derailing my beautiful thread.

[Clinton Huxley]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

seduce your wife so you get my French Pox, and then drown you under torrents of philosophy for derailing my beautiful thread.

My wife didn't derail your thread, why should she be punished?