Interesting idea. Depending on where the second bomb is dropped, some hawkish members of the Japanese government might try to pass it off as the Americans missing, rather than a demonstration. As to what would happen, it's tough to say. The Emperor's mind was already made up. I honestly think you'll get the same result as OTL. The Soviets are still invading, and Hiroshima's still gone. That's enough to show American resolve in a way that a demonstration strike first wouldn't. The only knock-on effects I can see would be possibly more testing post-war, since you've only got the results of one city blast.
Just how fanatical were the Imperial Japanese/how aggressive were the Allies?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
I've always thought that a drop in Tokyo Bay would do nicely. Sad about the fish, though. Is radiation blindness permanent?
It's not radiation blindness, but a scarring of the retina that happens when the individual focuses on a bright source of light for too long, the same thing that happens if you stare at the sun for any length of time. The receptors in the eye are simply overloaded. Depending on the seriousness of the injury, it may be permanent. The further you are from the blast, the better off you'll be, though.
Kang Seung Jae
Banned
BS. Korea had only 27 million people at the time.
Jeez, what's with these idiotic numbers going on?
I'll second that. Hiroshima did work as a demonstration, but because so few members of the Japanese government saw it, it was regarded with an air of mystery,and in a few cases an outright hoax, in the Government offices. I think a detonation right outside the capital city would do wonders as a psychological weapon. Few things are more terrible and awe-inspiring then a nuclear detonation.
As for the blindness, well, there probably would have been more cases of that at Hiroshima if not for the fact most of those who saw the blast that close were subsequently vaporized/carbonized (or, in a few cases of those who initially survived, had their eyeballs melted.)
I would have to disagree. While I am not anywhere as convinced of the bloodlymindedness of the Japanese as our two most recently banned Members, I do not believe that a demonstration, not matter how impressive (given what 1st Generation weapons were capable of), would have moved the Japanese High Command, or even the senior civilian leadership, at all. Even the destruction of a second city within three days was barely sufficient to get the Emperor enough backing to end the insanity.
A waterburst would have sent exactly the wrong message, namely that the Americans were getting squeamish about inflicting casualities, when the U.S. was doing its level best to send exactly the opposite signal. No, the 70,000 who died at Nagasaki were necessary to save at least ten (if not 30) times their number of JAPANESE lives. It was and IS tragic, but it is the kind of math that only makes sense in war.
I believe there is an arguement that the Japanese barely had time to find out what had happened in those three days; it does seem, on the face of it, quite a short period. The argument in favour of dropping the bombs in quick succession being that it made it look like there was an unlimited supply IIRC.
I was having a similar discussion with Ward about the Demonstration in Tokyo Bay theory yesterday. He seemed to feel it would have caused a tidal wave and ended up killing a lot of people. Not sure if that's true or not esp. if it was an airburst.
However, a lot of people at the time who can be in no way described as pacifists (Edward Teller, General Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy, General Spaatz for example) felt that the demonstation should at least have been tried. Of course, the second a third bombs could have been dropped for real if there was no surrender after the demo.
Alternatively, the war could have been ended months earlier if the only Japanese surrender term (retention of the emperor) had been accepted. Given that the emperor was retained after the eventual surrender, it seems a bit strange that the whole war wasn't ended at that point, which IMO is what gives rise to theories (true or not) about wanting to try the bomb or impress the Soviets.
In the first official census of South Korea, taken in 1949, South Korea alone had more than 20 million people. And that's not saying how many people there were before the famine at the end of the war.
The southern portion of Korea (South Korea) has and has had more people than the northern portion because it has more flat land and a better climate for agriculture. Some population information is given here:
http://www.populstat.info/Asia/koreaco.htm
The individual countries' statistics give more information. Loosing 10 to 20 million people after WW2 doesn't show up. And note that the population numbers would also be affected by emigration, as well as some immigration (mainly from Japan).
While I am not a scholar of this period of Korean history, I do have a lot of contact with Koreans. No Korean I have met has ever commented on a massive post-WW2 famine, although many have made sure I know about the Japanese colonial policies (including my father-in-law, who can still speak the Japanese he was forced to learn in primary school).
Amerigo, I can certainly accept 1 to 2 million deaths (given how the Japanese stripped the farms), but please provide a source for 10-20 million.
http://www.populstat.info/Asia/koreaco.htm
The individual countries' statistics give more information. Loosing 10 to 20 million people after WW2 doesn't show up. And note that the population numbers would also be affected by emigration, as well as some immigration (mainly from Japan).
While I am not a scholar of this period of Korean history, I do have a lot of contact with Koreans. No Korean I have met has ever commented on a massive post-WW2 famine, although many have made sure I know about the Japanese colonial policies (including my father-in-law, who can still speak the Japanese he was forced to learn in primary school).
Amerigo, I can certainly accept 1 to 2 million deaths (given how the Japanese stripped the farms), but please provide a source for 10-20 million.