• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they’re next

    The Trinity tests would have most likely been observed by Japanese spies/network, so the Japanese leadership already knew of the destructive nature of the bomb. And yet they didn’t surrender when ordered, until the bomb was finally used on their citizenry.

    • ilmagico@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The trinity tests weren’t even close to Japan’s shore… yes, spies would’ve seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.

      Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan’s navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let’s say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can’t know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much “victory or death” at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might’ve changed some people’s mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Doesn’t matter what the population thinks ultimately, it only matters what the leadership thinks, and the leadership would have gotten a full report on the destructive nature, and the ramifications of, from the Trinity test.

        So blowing up another one off on the Tokyo Harbor wouldn’t have added anything to what the leadership already knew about their chances of winning the war.

        • ilmagico@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.

          Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would’ve worked for sure, I don’t have a time machine. My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that’s why I don’t approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn’t exist yet at the time.

          Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn’t look like the US really tried.