Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Hiroshima or Nagasaki

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No Hiroshima or Nagasaki

    Suppose, for whatever reason, that the Manhattan Project failed to deliver a working atomic bomb by 1945 and Operation Downfall was launched with all the horrific casualties and barbarism that would have entailed.

    I think it is fair to say that the world at large was horrified by the results of the wartime use of the Bomb but if it had never been used, would it have made it more likely that at some stage of the Cold War, with little to guide or deter would be users of atomic weapons with regards the consequences, that the bomb might have been dropped and nuclear Armageddon unleashed?

    Doubtless tests like Bikini Atoll would still have gone ahead but the actual effects of radiation / blast / burns and all of the other wretched effects of nuclear weapons on real people would have been a speculative, almost academic subject of debate.

    Without wanting to sound in any way flippant or dismissive of the suffering unleashed on the inhabitants of the two devastated Japanese cities, was the one 'good' thing (apart from the saving of countless allied casualties created by an invasion of the home islands) about the bombings the fact that it showed the true cost of nukes when used for real and that such use stayed the hands of politicians and generals when their use looked like a viable option?

    Did Nagasaki & Hiroshima's fate ultimately save the rest of the world? Any thoughts?
    HONNEUR ET FIDÉLITÉ

    "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

  • #2
    LeMay's bombers burn the 8 cities left alone for nuclear attack to the ground. The US Navy's submarines and aircraft sink everything bigger than a rowboat within 500 miles of Japan leaving them isolated. The USN and USAAF mine every harbor and shipping route to keep it that way.
    Japan starves and slowly becomes a stone age nation. They surrender.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think that nuclear (or atomic) weapons would have to be used at least once to get the message across. Tests are fine and good, but a city incinerated was a demonstration that has kept a stronger lid on further use of the weapons.

      That said, we still have enough weapons to exterminate humanity several times over, so the message didn't go that deep.

      In a perfect world, after those two cities, the thought should have been 'never again'.

      In reality, the thought was 'we gotta have more than anyone else!'
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        End result is still the same but with a lot more casualties on both sides due to Coronet and Olympia. Soviet Union conquers the northern most Japanese Island. They had more time to consolidate their hold on the Chinese and Korean mainland leading to a more powerful Mao and the entrenchment of comunism.

        Post war:

        1.) Divided Japan between the communist north and capitalist south.
        2.) Mao captures all of China before 1949.
        3.) Korea has the possibility of staying communist.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          LeMay's bombers burn the 8 cities left alone for nuclear attack to the ground. The US Navy's submarines and aircraft sink everything bigger than a rowboat within 500 miles of Japan leaving them isolated. The USN and USAAF mine every harbor and shipping route to keep it that way.
          Japan starves and slowly becomes a stone age nation. They surrender.
          Agreed, LeMay hammers what is left of Japans cities and Japan falls anyway.

          On a separate point, isn't it 'funny' that whilst the veterans of Bomber Command were / are regarded with disdain by many historians and the likes of Churchill & Portal pretended that they didn't really agree with the policies of Harris after all and that the USAAF in Europe (in theory at least) shied away from area bombing, attitudes to the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities are viewed less harshly?

          Just so there is no doubt where my sympathies lie - Bomber Command did what they had to do given the limitations of their aircraft types and the orders given them by their political masters. If there had been no war then nobody would have been bombing anyone, as it was Harris merely saw to it that Germany was hit as hard as possible as often as possible. If Portal or Churchill were really that bothered about his conduct of the bombing war then they had numerous excuses to replace him. That they did not speaks volumes and the on-going lack of a campaign medal for BC veterans is nothing short of a national scandal. The Bomber Command memorial in London is a start but it isn't enough. Right, off my soap box.

          Anyhow - back to the subject: If the atomic bomb had not been used against Japan is it any more likely that it would have been used in another conflict given that its true horrors would not have been previously experienced? If yes, where do you think nukes might have been used?
          Attached Files
          HONNEUR ET FIDÉLITÉ

          "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dogsbody67 View Post
            Suppose, for whatever reason, that the Manhattan Project failed to deliver a working atomic bomb by 1945 and Operation Downfall was launched with all the horrific casualties and barbarism that would have entailed.

            I think it is fair to say that the world at large was horrified by the results of the wartime use of the Bomb but if it had never been used, would it have made it more likely that at some stage of the Cold War, with little to guide or deter would be users of atomic weapons with regards the consequences, that the bomb might have been dropped and nuclear Armageddon unleashed?
            A full Armageddon would be unlikely. What's more likely is a controlled escalation in the Korean War. Bad news for Korea, but then the "Hiroshima" effect would set in, and the two sides would in all likelihood back off before further escalation.

            A less likely scenario is one where the Korean confrontation takes place, but the Soviets are still working on their atomic bomb project. After all, they had truckloads of convincing evidence from their spies in the Manhattan Project, but in this timeline they would lack the ultimate proof that the weapon actually worked. So they might lack the motivation to burn through the development and acquire that weapon themselves.
            If this happens, the "Hiroshima" effect takes place anyway (probably in North Korea, possibly not far from its Northern border), and that war ends with a Western victory; naturally, this spurs the Soviet program twice as much as the actual Hiroshima in our timeline.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michele View Post
              A full Armageddon would be unlikely. What's more likely is a controlled escalation in the Korean War. Bad news for Korea, but then the "Hiroshima" effect would set in, and the two sides would in all likelihood back off before further escalation.

              A less likely scenario is one where the Korean confrontation takes place, but the Soviets are still working on their atomic bomb project. After all, they had truckloads of convincing evidence from their spies in the Manhattan Project, but in this timeline they would lack the ultimate proof that the weapon actually worked. So they might lack the motivation to burn through the development and acquire that weapon themselves.
              If this happens, the "Hiroshima" effect takes place anyway (probably in North Korea, possibly not far from its Northern border), and that war ends with a Western victory; naturally, this spurs the Soviet program twice as much as the actual Hiroshima in our timeline.
              Yes, I would go along with your scenario but that opens up a host of other fascinating 'what ifs?'
              HONNEUR ET FIDÉLITÉ

              "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

              Comment


              • #8
                US forces invade Japan and suffers an expected worse case scenario of 800,000 killed a number concluded by Secretary of War Henry Stimpson's staffer William Shockley, this is out of 1.7 million casualties total US casualties, numbers for other allied troops were not figured into this.

                I can only suspect that had the two eggs were not dropped and convential means were used the USA would never allow itself to go to war again, not after suffering casualties during both World Wars.

                USA after this remains utterly isolationist

                Comment


                • #9
                  The cabinet meetings of the Japanese government have been raked over by western historians, and the personal accounts of several key individuals have been available as well. What all that make clear is that the cabinet was not yet willing to consider surrender until August. Until the second week of August the Japanese leaders were still clinging to the idea they could negotiate a cease fire and a peace treaty that would leave Japan with its military and Imperial boundaries of 1937 intact. Two external and one internal events destroyed that idea.

                  First the July reports of the Dept of Agriculture estimates for the 1945 harvest in the home islands were in circulation. Those showed that the rice harvest would fall well below the previous years, and that other crops would not come close to making up the difference. Japan was already subject to severe rationing and any further reduction would lead directly to malnutrition in large segments of the population, and illnesses & death in vulnerable groups. It was already well known imports from Asia had fallen to nearly zero.

                  Second the declaration of war by the USSR showed the bankruptcy of the final remaining leg of Japans foreign policy. That had been the assumption the USSR would continue to remain nuetral in the US/Japan conflict, and it would be possible to use the Soviet Union as a potiential enemy of the US to 'encourage' a cease fire and peace negotiations.

                  Third was of course the two atomic bombs. It was clear to the Japanese more would follow soon.

                  Absent #3 there were still the first two problems. The hard core were still willing to fairy dust away the implications of the agricultural reports, but the Soviet DoW was poltically shattering. Even if the Red Army had not attacked en mass the DoW left Japans strategy of the previous six months worthless. Much is made of the destruction of the Kwantung Army and the swift overunning of Manchuria, but when the Cabinet made the decision to surrender that had not yet occured. There was bad news trickling in from the battle front, but it was a few more days before the situation begain to look catastrophic.

                  My best guess is the members of the cabinet would have not been able to approach the question of unconditional surrender for several more weeks, perhaps another month. By mid September the Red Army would have been consolidating in Manchruia & Korea, and the first signs of famine appearing. Food riots may have even started by then and refugees ignoring travel restrictions in order to find areas with more black market food. US bombing would have destroyed much more of the urban landscape, destroyed more railroad track and bridges, the remaining navy sunk,

                  With the likelyhood of surrender in September or October would the non use of atomic weapons have saved lives? At the start of August over 100,000 people in Asia were dying each week from combat and Japanese 'anti bandit' actions. In the Pacific there were still daily battles in the Phillipines, and East Indies. It is clear the Japanese were on the verge of killing the PoW in their custody in mid August. Preliminary killing of selected individuals and those in the hospitals were occuring in early to mid August. The bottom line is had the surrender been delayed another 3-4 weeks at least 300,000 people would have died across Asia and Pacifica, perhaps over 500,000.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by IDonT4 View Post
                    End result is still the same but with a lot more casualties on both sides due to Coronet and Olympia. Soviet Union conquers the northern most Japanese Island. They had more time to consolidate their hold on the Chinese and Korean mainland leading to a more powerful Mao and the entrenchment of comunism.

                    Post war:

                    1.) Divided Japan between the communist north and capitalist south.
                    2.) Mao captures all of China before 1949.
                    3.) Korea has the possibility of staying communist.
                    I can see a deeper incursion into China and Korea but Japan? The Soviet Pacific Fleet lacks the ability to project any sort of amphibious force capable of taking on the Japanese, even in 1945 on the mainland of Japan. Any such attempt would have ended in something like a Dieppe.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Northwestern Japan was far less well defended. The Soviet DoW was a complete suprise and the defenses weak as the Japanese correctly judged the US would not attack there.

                      The Soviet Navy had just taken delivery of well over 100 landing craft and amphibious support ships from the US. A portion of those were used in August in multiple landings on the eastern coast of Korea. Against the weak defense most were sucessful and suggest how attacks on the NW coast of Japan would have come out.

                      The transfer of landing craft was called "Project" or 'Operation Hula". The training of Soviet crews and transfer of the ships & boats was at Cold Bay Alaska.
                      Last edited by Carl Schwamberg; 07 Oct 13, 20:09.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                        Northwestern Japan was far less well defended. The Soviet DoW was a complete suprise and the defenses weak as the Japanese correctly judged the US would not attack there.

                        The Soviet Navy had just taken delivery of well over 100 landing craft and amphibious support ships from the US. A portion of those were used in August in multiple landings on the eastern coast of Korea. Against the weak defense most were sucessful and suggest how attacks on the NW coast of Japan would have come out.

                        The transfer of landing craft was called "Project" or 'Operation Hula". The training of Soviet crews and transfer of the ships & boats was at Cold Bay Alaska.
                        Yes but the Russians will come under attack from all areas, they'd have to wage total war against the entire populace, also consider the effect on those Soviets landing vessels coming under kamikaze attack, something they are not used to, the Soviets did not deal with that against the Germans, but when dying is seen as an act of divinity, the Japanese are a different kettle of fish to contend with.

                        Also the folk in the North of Japan are fisher folk who know the seas like the back of their hand, while the Soviets are on their learner plates, how many of those Soviet troops would be spewing up their guts en route and feel like that are at deaths door then being hurled at thousands of troops and civillians while as previously mentioned coming under Kamikaze attack from port to beachhead.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think the most important question to ask is, assuming the US does complete a working bomb shortly after WW2. Do they use it on Communist China or even the USSR? I doubt a case could be made for the latter at that point in time, but possibly the former.
                          A wild liberal appears! Conservative uses logical reasoning and empirical evidence! It's super effective! Wild liberal faints.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Destroyer25 View Post
                            I think the most important question to ask is, assuming the US does complete a working bomb shortly after WW2. Do they use it on Communist China or even the USSR? I doubt a case could be made for the latter at that point in time, but possibly the former.
                            Watched a pseudo docco many moons ago and in it Curtiss LeMay was very keen on eliminating the Soviet Union as potential threat, this would have been done that a return of all of the available Silverplates in the US inventory being based in Norway and from there they would launch deep strikes against Soviet bomber bases and major cities such as Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk and Kiev.

                            The result is that the Soviet central military/political commands are virtually knocked out and then the US/Western Allies begin to launch major attacks on every Soviet base with thousands of bombers. The Soviet capitulate 12 months later, and international communism dies out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                              Yes but the Russians will come under attack from all areas, they'd have to wage total war against the entire populace, also consider the effect on those Soviets landing vessels coming under kamikaze attack, something they are not used to, the Soviets did not deal with that against the Germans, but when dying is seen as an act of divinity, the Japanese are a different kettle of fish to contend with.

                              Also the folk in the North of Japan are fisher folk who know the seas like the back of their hand, while the Soviets are on their learner plates, how many of those Soviet troops would be spewing up their guts en route and feel like that are at deaths door then being hurled at thousands of troops and civillians while as previously mentioned coming under Kamikaze attack from port to beachhead.
                              That area was sparsely populated and apart from some initial delay in breaking the Japanese lines on Sakhalin, the Red Army fought a good campaign, initiating landings on Sakhalin, Korea and the larger Kuril Islands. No problems at all with the landings. You also forget the Soviet Pacific Fleet is not going tobe sitting idly by, nor the VVS - any kamikaze attacks are going to be dealt with by pilots with a lot of experience against a foe that played dirty and had much better aircraft than the Japanese.

                              Meanwhile, I can't see fishermen being of too much use to a force stuck on land: the SPF will take the view that if ain't theirs, it sinks. And don't forget the Soviets have paratroopers, and transports to drop and supply them. While taking Hokkaido won't be a complete cake walk, the IJA will have its work cut out reinforcing any troops there.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X