Comment by excalibur
5 years ago
> These explosions were tests, shows of force to rival nations, and proof that countries such as Russia, France, and the U.S. had mastered the science of the bomb.
Except for the two that weren't.
5 years ago
> These explosions were tests, shows of force to rival nations, and proof that countries such as Russia, France, and the U.S. had mastered the science of the bomb.
Except for the two that weren't.
Those two were on the other side of the world, and they're talking about US honey.
> Here we show that vegetation thousands of kilometers from testing sites continues to cycle 137Cs because it mimics potassium, and consequently, bees magnify this radionuclide in honey. There were no atmospheric weapons tests in the eastern United States, but most honey here has detectable 137Cs at >0.03 Bq kg−1, and in the southeastern U.S., activities can be >500 times higher.
Sort of depends on how you define “show of force”
That's precisely what they were.
TL;DR, it was becoming apparent that Japan was not going to surrender, and were willing to fight to the last man standing. The nuclear bomb drops were to demonstrate to the Japanese government that they were clearly outmatched by the end of the war.
It worked.
It was to create the impression there was an indefinite supply of bombs, but to who?
I believe there is an opinion of some that part of the motivation was to prevent the Soviet Union from moving in after Japan's defeat, like they did in Europe.
This is often asserted as if it were a shocking revelation and a moral indictment of the decision.
However, it seems to me both a plausible motivation (I haven't bothered to read up on the evidence or don't remember if I have) and potentially morally defensible, particularly in hindsight.
That's the popular narrative, yes. I've seldom heard a historian endorse it. Rather, the evidence suggests that the surrender was primarily triggered by the Soviet Union's declaration of war.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-jap...
Note that it's in the interests of both countries to promote the Bomb narrative - America to justify the financial and moral cost, and Japan to justify the loss of the war (a black-swan wonder-weapon being a less shameful reason for defeat than military incompetence). But in truth, Japan's cities had already been firebombed to smithereens - in that context the Bomb wasn't really all that shocking.
There was no need to burn two cities. The head honchos could have been taken to the test(s); with the possibility of surrendering earlier with less territory lost to Soviets.
7 replies →
Actually they had already lost the war on the chinese front and would have surrendered anyway...