What if the Atomic Bomb had not been dropped

Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM

This grew out of a debate on the use of the A-Bomb.

The use of two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 is popularly supposed to have ended the war, by convincing the Japanese that further resistance was futile. However, the bomb had dreadful – and not perhaps unexpected – effects on the Japanese people, many of whom were innocent victims. This article attempts to answer two questions; a) was the use of the atomic bomb justified and b) what would have happened if the bomb had not been used.

In May 1945, when Germany surrendered, Japan was on the ropes. The USSR mounted a surprise attack (it is debatable how surprising that attack was, but the Japanese on the ground were surprised) into Manchuria and ended the Japanese ‘Manchurian dream’ forever. The Kwangtang army was weakened by the need for home defence and could offer no effective resistance to the soviet hordes.

At sea, the US was dominant. The Japanese navy had been crushed and their sea borne supply lines had been cut off. In the air, Japan was being regularly firebombed and starved – the Japanese were in physical danger of racial extinction. Any sane government would have surrendered after Iwo Jima.

But the Japanese government was not sane, at least not by western standards. They still (!) believed in victory, or believed that if they held out long enough, the US would accept something short of total humiliation. The US could have made such an offer. Without that, the Japanese defeat was inevitable, even without the predicted US invasion. Therefore, militarily, the use of the A-Bomb was unnecessary and effectively pure spite.

Strategically, through, the scene was not so rosy. The USSR was slowly showing its true colours and taking over Eastern Europe. The US people were demanding demilitarision and a return to civilian life. If Stalin waited two years, the USSR’s forces would be able to take most of Europe without much difficulty. Meanwhile, Stalin had the chance to seize northern China and Korea, and the US had nothing that could stop them – except the threat of the bomb. Strategically, therefore, there were excellent reasons to display the power of the awesome new weapon. These period quotes show that this conclusion was justified.

"I cannot speak for the others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an end to the war before the Russians came in...Neither the President nor I were anxious to have them (the Soviets) enter the war after we had learned of this successful (atomic) test." (James Byrnes, Secretary of State 1945-47)

"Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war...Mr. Byrnes view (was) that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe." (Leo Szilard, Nuclear Physicist)

"The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russia's participation. I'm sure if President Roosevelt had still been there, none of that would have been possible." (Albert Einstein)

I cannot, however, approve of the choice of target. The US cold-bloodedly decided to target a city (The first choices of targets for nuclear weapons were: a. Kyoto, b. Hiroshima, c. Yokohama, d. Kokura Arsenal.); I would have selected a military base, such as Truk, which would have impressed Stalin more than a city, but that’s water under the bridge.

Therefore, I have concluded that the use of the atomic bomb was justified under the circumstances, although the choice of target was bad.

Now, what if the Atomic Bomb had not been dropped? On 1945.5.10, the UC choose the targets for the weapon, as noted above. Meanwhile, Joseph Grew, undersecretary of the State Department, predicted that the Japanese would surrender to President Truman, while some of the scientists from the Atomic bomb project, including Szilard, expressed their opinions against use of the A-bomb to J. Byrnes, Presidential advisor. In OTL, their concerns were rejected, lets assume that the combination of the perceived imminent Japanese surrender and the concerns raised by those who know the bomb technology best causes President Truman to withhold authority to deploy the weapon.

This does not affect the military situation much; Japan is still in serious trouble and is inching slowly towards surrender. However, the Soviets may not give them that time. Without a formal surrender, Stalin’s forces have the chance to take all of Korea and they do. The US is annoyed, but is unable to prevent it from happening. Worse, the Soviets launch a gamble and use a ragtag fleet to transport a few thousand troops to Hokkaido. Faced with an invasion by their old foes, the Japanese surrender to the USA.

The US demands that the Soviets withdraw, but Stalin refuses and uses the time given by the surrender to reinforce his forces on Hokkaido. There is a real danger of war breaking out between the two superpowers, but the diplomats patch together an agreement – The soviets will be allowed to occupy Hokkaido and administer part of Tokyo. They also agree to a timetable for withdrawing from China, Manchuria and Korea, although Stalin has no intention of keeping that agreement.

Some timelines I’ve seen along similar lines have the soviets never developing the bomb themselves. I don’t think that’s likely. The spy ring in the Manhattan project had reported to Stalin that the atomic bomb was a workable weapon and provided his scientists with many of the details about its construction, a soviet bomb would probably appear not much later than OTL, with a British and French bomb coming later. The British are very aware that a bomb can be built and the commonwealth may have more incentive to build the bomb.

I suspect that the soviets would be bolder with their communising programme. They would annex their part of Iran and add it to the USSR. They would install puppet governments on Manchuria and Korea, which would lead to a bloody war with the ChiComms and the Chinese Nationalists.

The west would have more difficulties with rebuilding. They would need to maintain a very powerful military force in Germany to prevent Stalin from getting any ideas, as the power of the bomb would not have been so forcibly impressed into their minds. France might find itself no longer in a position to quit NATO and may discover that it can’t afford a long war in Algeria. The soviets would also be more able to oppose Germanys rearmerant if it’s perceived to be in a stronger position vis a vis the west.

I suspect that Truman would face a serious challenge at home. An atomic bombing of Japan is the only thing that would justify the expense of the Manhattan Project. If this expense were not justified, Truman would have faced a Congressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Not only did he want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he also wanted another term of office. His chances of re-election would have been reduced if it were learned by the general public that he wasted money and American lives by not deploying a weapon that could have ended the war more quickly. It would also not present a lesson in the willingness of the US to use weapons of mass destruction.

The world would be a far less safe place without the use of the bomb in 1945. Therefore, I believe that we can claim that the use of the bomb was justified, under the circumstances.

Thoughts?

Atomic bomb chronology: http://www.ask.ne.jp/~hankaku/english/np7y.html