The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Thingamabob, Aug 13, 2018.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    *shakes head*

    The Empire was already in the hands of others. Which had been the norm a century before Marco Polo traveled to China. Other than for a brief period during and after the Meiji Restoration, the Empire had always been led by others in the name of the Emperor. All we really did was help them draft a new Constitution, then mandate that they actually follow it.

    And he was not subordinate to General MacArthur. He did what he did for the benefit of his people, but the General also knew that if he ever tried to push too hard (like when it was suggested he tell the Emperor to convert to Christianity) that the people would have immediately revolted. Thankfully the General understood the Japanese, and simply never made any requests that were impossible for the Emperor to follow.

    But rest assured that if he had, there would have been a bloody revolt.
     
  2. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great troll
     
  3. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    After WWII it was in the hands of MacArthur.

    "From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers"

    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Japan's_Surrender_Communiqués
     
  4. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    7 more would have been available by October.
     
  5. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just the two were enough so I was able to be conceived by my father and mother.

    In August of 45 my father had just began training for the final amphibious assault of the Japanese main islands. (Operation Downfall)

    He would have gone ashore on the first wave when the 5th Mar Div hit the beaches on Kyushu (Operation Olympic)

    Life expectancy for those on the first wave ? 10%

    If my father were have been killed, I wouldn't be hear today and neither would the offspring of the other 400,000 to 800,000 American troops who would have been killed.
     
    ArmySoldier likes this.
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, just 1. The 5th bomb of that year would have been available in mid-late November. In 1945 the US built 5 atomic bombs, and used 3 of them. Hence the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shows that the stockpile at the end of the year as 2.
     
  7. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is with the surrender. There were plans in place for a massive ramp up of production if the invasion was to go ahead starting in late August. The plan called for 7 warheads to be available by October to be used against both Japanese cities and force concentrations.
     
  8. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They could have asked for them all they wanted, they would not have gotten them. It took until the end of 1946 for the US to have 9 weapons in their inventory (total built by the end of 1946 was 14 - 2 used in war 3 used in tests). In those early years it was still taking 2-3 months to extract enough plutonium or uranium to make a single functional weapon.

    This is why testing was very sparse those first years. It was not until the 1950's that we started to see large-scale testing of atomic (then thermonuclear) devices. We simply did not have enough of them to do more than basic function tests. By the 1950's, ORNL was out of the "atomic bomb business", and the Hanford Site in Washington State was producing ever increasing amounts of plutonium.

    3 reactors at the end of 1945, 4 by 1949, 5 by 1950, 6 by 1952, 8 by 1955. And each reactor was larger and produced more plutonium than the one before it (other than the first 3 which were all of the same design).
     
  9. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is incorrect. They were going to build one more A-bomb in August, then another seven over the next two months, then another five in November, then a minimum of seven a month from December on.

    These plans were put on hold after Japan surrendered, which is why we had so few of them in 1946.

    Had Japan not surrendered, those plans would not have been put on hold.
     
  10. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It sucks we lost WWII to Japan. But at least we won the Vietnam war.
     
    Thingamabob and Toggle Almendro like this.
  11. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Several have made this absurd comment and I have just left it to flounder, but seeing as you put it in such a delightful context I will point out that I never said the U.S. lost to Japan. What I am saying is that the U.S. did not win against Japan by America's own definition. Washington lied and it is obvious to anyone with their eyes & ears open.
     
  12. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "4. The final components of the first gun type bomb have arrived at Tinian, those of the first implosion type should leave San Francisco by airplane early on 30 July. I see no reason to change our previous readiness predictions on the first three bombs. In September, we should have three or four bombs. One of those will be made from 235 material and will have a smaller effectiveness, about two-thirds that of the test type, but by November, we should be able to bring that up to full power. There should be either four or three bombs in October, one of the lesser size. In November there should be at least five bombs and the rate will rise to seven in December and increase decidedly in early 1946. By some time in November, we should have the effectiveness of the 235 implosion type bomb equal to that of the tested plutonium implosion type."

    http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf (PDF)
    http://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html
    http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/groves-leslie/corr_groves_1945-07-30.htm
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, bomb #4, expected to be used in late August. #5 was still being constructed and would have been ready by November. Both 4 and 5 were to have been Fat Man style implosion devices. Once the design had been proven that is where most of the work was concentrated, as it was easier and faster at that time to manufacture Plutonium than it was to extract U-235.

    #6 was expected to be another White Sands test bomb, to see if a smaller Plutonium bomb (already under construction) would have worked. And it is still questionable if that would have been effective. One thing we know today is that it is much more tricky to "downsize" a plutonium bomb than it is a uranium bomb because of the needs to achieve critical mass (the explosive lenses have to be perfect in an implosion - for a gun U-235 bomb you literally only have to throw together enough mass and it can go off by itself). And that downsizing them drastically lowers their effectiveness (as in bombs of only 1-4kt as opposed to 15+kt). I doubt that would have had any major impact against Japan, we could already do that with conventional munitions.

    Our earliest tests of early small implosion devices (Test Shots Quince and Fig, as part of Operation Hardtack I in early 1958) were both "fizzles". That means they achieved detonation, but did not achieve critical mass needed for nuclear fission. That is likely the result that the expected test 2 (bomb 6) would have had, leading them to scrap the idea of making smaller bombs until after the war. Bomb damage would have been minimal, but radioactive fallout would have been immense. Essentially creating a giant "dirty bomb".

    You have to remember, that timeline you use was only workable if the smaller plutonium devices worked. If they did not (and they likely would not have worked), then the bombings would have continued with the already proven Fat Man and Little Boy style devices. In real history, the US was not able to actually test a working small sized atomic device until Operation Hardtack II in late 1958 (Test Shot Eddy, September 1958).

    The reason I tend to reject the accelerated timelines that many use is that they were based upon essentially an anachronistic test of the early XW51 design working. And as we know in real world history, when that was finally attempted 13 years later the earlier tests were failures. So likely the concept of using small plutonium devices would have been scrapped and we would have to rely upon the times needed to complete Fat Man and Little Boy type devices.

    Much like how it would have been even slower if the Trinity test had been a failure. If that had happened, there would have been no Fat Man, and all devices would have been of the Little Boy variety.
     
  14. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Counting the Trinity test as bomb number 1, bomb numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were going to be available in September and October.

    Numbers 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were going to be available in November.

    The smaller bomb was going to use U-235 in an implosion device.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  15. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male



    That makes no sense. Is this supposed to be a joke thread?
     
  16. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you joking, that's the question. Clearly, the U.S. accepted Japan's condition, so ...... it was not an Unconditional Surrender. Is that so difficult to understand that you think "it makes no sense"?
     
  17. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We flatly refused Japan's condition. Hirohito did not retain unlimited dictatorial power. He was subordinate to MacArthur.
     
  18. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US offered no conditions and Japan signed an unconditional surrender.

    This is a fact no one denies
     
  19. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    This seems like the excited but immature reasoning of a child who sees words but does not grasp their meaning. When the circumstances of a surrender are entirely dictated by the victors with the full recognition of such by the vanquished, that is an unconditional surrender.
     
  20. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny you should say that. Hang on to that thought. I'll get back to it soon.
    That is good enough to quote: "When the circumstances of a surrender are entirely dictated by the victors with the full recognition of such by the vanquished ... that is an unconditional surrender."

    Once more: "entirely dictated by the victors with the full recognition of such by the vanquished"

    Just one more time: "entirely dictated" and "full recognition".
    These are your own words. Right?

    And when it IS NOT "entirely dictated" or when the vanquished ARE NOT in "full recognition"? What is that called? Oh, never mind what it is called .... what do YOU call it?

    Washington: "We will accept an unconditional surrender otherwise we will crush you!"
    Tokyo: "We might agree to surrender but we demand one condition, that being that our Emperor Hirohito remain head of the Japanese state."
    Washington: "No! We told you that we will only accept a surrender if it is unconditional so we will not accept your terms!"
    Tokyo: "In that case, no deal. We will continue to fight".
    Washington: "Suit yourselves!"
    Tokyo: "Lock and load boys! This war ain't over yet!"

    A few days later .....
    Washington: "Ok, Ok, we changed our mind. We will accept your condition. Your Emperor can remain head of the Japanese state."
    Tokyo: "Glad to see that you have come to your senses. We would have mauled the hell out of you and made you pay many American lives for every inch of Japan you advance."

    Golly. That's pretty much straight-forward but if you don't understand such a simple thing then I understand what you mean by "the immature reasoning of a child".

     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  21. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Back to childish nonsense. The above is your own fiction. The reality is that the US set all the terms and Japan signed off on them in the documents of surrender. You're really not going to change the facts of history no matter how much fictional dialog you post.
     
  22. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The facts prove that you are wrong. If you being wrong doesn't bother you then it's OK with me, son.

    Andy Griffith 2.gif
     
  23. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    They don’t. Nothing but your own little fabricated dialogs suggest anything about your silly claim.

    You will find no legitimate historian who agrees with this foolishness.
     
  24. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The condition that Japan asked for was for Hirohito to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

    We rejected that condition. Hirohito was subordinate to MacArthur.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
  25. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    * On August 10, 1945, Japan notified the U.S. that it was willing to lay down its arms but only on the condition that the Emperor remain in power.

    * The U.S. immediately refused, stating that only an unconditional surrender would be accepted and that retaining the Emperor was a condition and therefore not to be considered.

    * On August 14, however, the U.S. did an about-face and contacted Japan saying that the Japanese condition would be accepted. And so it was.

    This is all fact, noted and documented and you guys need to grow up.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019

Share This Page