Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/3/2005 10:42:07 PM EDT
Why did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT on Tokyo?

I know that Nagasaki was choice #2 only when Osaka has too much cloud cover. But you would figure that Tokyo had more populace and could have caused more damage.

Now MY theory is that with Tokyo destroyed, it would have destroyed the government thus having no one to surrender. How off the mark am I?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:44:13 PM EDT
The firebombings of Tokyo left it pretty much destroyed as I recall. We killed more in the Tokyo raid then either of the nuked cities.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:44:32 PM EDT
It was a display of force to induce a surrender? I am sure if they kept up the fighting a few more would have dropped. Yokyo wouldn't have been far away.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:53:42 PM EDT
When choosing targets for the nukes they looked for Japanese cities that han NOT been bombed to rubble. Hiroshima and Osaka (the primary targets) where both pristine as was Nagasaki. Tokyo had been massively firebombed and was already pretty much destroyed. The interesting thing is the only reason the Japanese finally did surrender is Americas mass producion. They figured we could pump out nukes just as fast as we could tanks and planes and would nuke every city.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:54:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CFII:
The firebombings of Tokyo left it pretty much destroyed as I recall. We killed more in the Tokyo raid then either of the nuked cities.



All of the above.

We needed a undamaged city to show the power of the bomb.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:55:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 10:56:34 PM EDT by eodtech2000]
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:55:56 PM EDT
Wraithtouch beat me to it.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:57:13 PM EDT
You guys are fucking AWESOME!

This is why I love this site... any question answered at any time of the day or night. Where were you all when I was in High School??
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:15:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
You guys are fucking AWESOME!

This is why I love this site... any question answered at any time of the day or night. Where were you all when I was in High School??




we sit in the back
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:18:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.



Also wasn't historical landmarks a consideration as well?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:22:31 AM EDT

If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped


Bingo. Winner here!
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:36:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 7:47:54 AM EDT by KlubMarcus]

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Why did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT on Tokyo?

We didn't need to bomb Tokyo because Godzilla was on his way.

Look at that Zero pilot on the bottom-right, he's scared!
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:39:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Attman:

Originally Posted By CFII:
The firebombings of Tokyo left it pretty much destroyed as I recall. We killed more in the Tokyo raid then either of the nuked cities.



All of the above.

We needed a undamaged city to show the power of the bomb.



Not just to show the power, but it was also important research...they wanted to see how far the damage extended, how much damage was produced.

The designs of the two bombs were different and I believe their burst types were different, again good R&D for the designers....

Afterall, there is only so much info you can glean from a burst over a desert....
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:39:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 7:41:02 AM EDT by DOW]

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.



Also wasn't historical landmarks a consideration as well?



Yes, that and there were some endangered plantlife there that caused concern as well


I don't think landmarks were a point of concern at that point in the Second World War.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:40:17 AM EDT
Because of all the atrocities commited by the Japanese during WWII.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:40:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 7:42:12 AM EDT by NimmerMehr]

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Why did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT on Tokyo?

I know that Nagasaki was choice #2 only when Osaka has too much cloud cover. But you would figure that Tokyo had more populace and could have caused more damage.

Now MY theory is that with Tokyo destroyed, it would have destroyed the government thus having no one to surrender. How off the mark am I?



That is my belief from what I've read thus far. also, there were 4 or 5 cities that were not ordered not to be conventionaly bombed, they were to be pristine for the atomic bombs.. sort of a science experiment.


*I'm sure someone will be along shortly to insult me and say it was to save the lives of the grunts.

Wern't the aimpionts in the geographical centers of the city?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:54:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.



Also wasn't historical landmarks a consideration as well?



Yes, that and there were some endangered plantlife there that caused concern as well


I don't think landmarks were a point of concern at that point in the Second World War.



Actually it was, so don't scoff so fast. They rejected several targets due to historical value of the locations.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:00:39 AM EDT
We burned 29 square miles of Tokyo in a single night, there was no need to drop one of the big ones.

My college history prof (former CIA, very cool guy) told us that there were some elements of the scientific community that wanted to drop the first a-bomb over an unpopulated area. They figured that the Japanese would see the amount of destruction and surrender without any more bloodshed.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:37:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 8:37:46 AM EDT by eodtech2000]

Originally Posted By pzjgr:

Originally Posted By Attman:

Originally Posted By CFII:
The firebombings of Tokyo left it pretty much destroyed as I recall. We killed more in the Tokyo raid then either of the nuked cities.



All of the above.

We needed a undamaged city to show the power of the bomb.



Not just to show the power, but it was also important research...they wanted to see how far the damage extended, how much damage was produced.

The designs of the two bombs were different and I believe their burst types were different, again good R&D for the designers....

Afterall, there is only so much info you can glean from a burst over a desert....



Both weapons used the same altitude sensing features, a radio beam was projected downwards and when the Yagi antennas recieved a strong enough signal at approx. 2000 feet, the device detonated. Yagi antennas were invented by a Japanese scientist by the way, payback is a bitch!!!!

The Hiroshima bomb was a simple gun-weapon, utilizing U-235, and had a yield of 12 KT - 15 KT. It was not a very efficient weapon but it was very dirty, only about 3% of the U-235 was consumed in fission, the rest was fallout.

The Nagasaki bomb by contrast was a very complex implosion weapon utilizing Pu-239, it had a yield of approx. 20 KT - 22 KT. It was a much more efficient weapon, about 33% of the Pu-239 was consumed in fission.

BTW, the reason the Little Boy wasn't tested like the Fat Man in New Mexico was that the scientists were a 100% confident it would work, gun weapons are very reliable.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:56:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 9:01:52 AM EDT by bmick325]

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By pzjgr:

Originally Posted By Attman:
Originally Posted By CFII:

The firebombings of Tokyo left it pretty much destroyed as I recall. We killed more in the Tokyo raid then either of the nuked cities.


All of the above.

We needed a undamaged city to show the power of the bomb.



Not just to show the power, but it was also important research...they wanted to see how far the damage extended, how much damage was produced.

The designs of the two bombs were different and I believe their burst types were different, again good R&D for the designers....

Afterall, there is only so much info you can glean from a burst over a desert....



Both weapons used the same altitude sensing features, a radio beam was projected downwards and when the Yagi antennas recieved a strong enough signal at approx. 2000 feet, the device detonated. Yagi antennas were invented by a Japanese scientist by the way, payback is a bitch!!!!

The Hiroshima bomb was a simple gun-weapon, utilizing U-235, and had a yield of 12 KT - 15 KT. It was not a very efficient weapon but it was very dirty, only about 3% of the U-235 was consumed in fission, the rest was fallout.

The Nagasaki bomb by contrast was a very complex implosion weapon utilizing Pu-239, it had a yield of approx. 20 KT - 22 KT. It was a much more efficient weapon, about 33% of the Pu-239 was consumed in fission.

BTW, the reason the Little Boy wasn't tested like the Fat Man in New Mexico was that the scientists were a 100% confident it would work, gun weapons are very reliable.[/quote]



We used to call that airburst with an impact backup.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:54:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Why did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT on Tokyo?

I know that Nagasaki was choice #2 only when Osaka has too much cloud cover. But you would figure that Tokyo had more populace and could have caused more damage.

Now MY theory is that with Tokyo destroyed, it would have destroyed the government thus having no one to surrender. How off the mark am I?




I think you`re pretty close. Ultimately we would have nuked Tokyo if we had to invade Japan. The history channel show on the invasion indicated IIRC that we were preparing to nuke at least seven cities in the course of an invasion.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:55:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.



Also wasn't historical landmarks a consideration as well?



Yes, that and there were some endangered plantlife there that caused concern as well


I don't think landmarks were a point of concern at that point in the Second World War.



Actually it was, so don't scoff so fast. They rejected several targets due to historical value of the locations.




Name some specifics please.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:15:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arbob:

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Why did we drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT on Tokyo?

I know that Nagasaki was choice #2 only when Osaka has too much cloud cover. But you would figure that Tokyo had more populace and could have caused more damage.

Now MY theory is that with Tokyo destroyed, it would have destroyed the government thus having no one to surrender. How off the mark am I?




I think you`re pretty close. Ultimately we would have nuked Tokyo if we had to invade Japan. The history channel show on the invasion indicated IIRC that we were preparing to nuke at least seven cities in the course of an invasion.



That would suck being infantry moving into that kind of hellish scenario.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 11:35:48 AM EDT
FYI the 509th Bomb Group that dropped the bombs on Japan was resurected as the 509th Bombardment Wing and currently flies the 21 B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:07:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 3:08:23 PM EDT by arbob]

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Like mentioned before, most of Tokyo was already consumed in the greatest fire storm ever seen. Also they did not want to kill the Emperor right off, it was known if they could get the Emperor call a surrender, the Japanese Military would stand down. If they killed the Emperor, chances of a surrender were pretty fucking remote no matter how many Atomic bombs were dropped and the operations Coronet and Olympic would have to be put into action.

Those invasions would have made Iwo Jima and Stalingrad look like low intensity battles, I suspect we would have to wipe out virtually the entire population as they were going to fight or starve to death one way or another, surrender is not in the Japanese lexicon.



Also wasn't historical landmarks a consideration as well?



Yes, that and there were some endangered plantlife there that caused concern as well


I don't think landmarks were a point of concern at that point in the Second World War.



Actually it was, so don't scoff so fast. They rejected several targets due to historical value of the locations.




Name some specifics please.



Kyoto was one target spared due to its historical significance in compliance with the Hague Convention.
Top Top