Nagasaki - what was really targetted and why?

[RDKirk]

Here is a true story of how stuff can happen that makes you go, "Wut?"

You can check Wikipedia for the backstory details of Operation Infinite Reach.

But from where I sat, this is what happened in that debacle:

In 1998, Al Qaeda had been implicated in August 7 bomb attacks against American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which had killed 224 people, including some Americans. That was one point.

A second point was that a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory was believed to have financial ties with Osama bin Laden and was producing chemical weapon "precursors."

This was, however, a matter of hot debate between the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The CIA believed the plant was implicated, the DIA did not. But because of the embassy bombings, the CIA gave Clinton a list of possible targets for retailiatory attacks, and the pharmaceutical factory was on the list despite the contention within the Intelligence Community.

The third point was the development of extremely credible, detailed intelligence that Osama bin Laden would be present at an Afghanistan Al Qaeda training facility on the morning of August 20.

The military set up a plan to strike the Afghanistan camp to kill bin Laden. This was separate and without knowledge of White House discussion of retaliation for the embassy bombings. The Pentagon set the strike plan to the White House for approval.

When I went to bed on August 19, I thought that's what was going to happen.

Then some strange things occurred in the White House. Clinton approved the concept of striking the training base to kill bin Laden...but he didn't want it to appear like a specific assassination attempt.

If it were made part of a larger attack for other purposes--such as the retaliation for the embassy bombings that they were already looking at--that would cover the fact that the real intent was to kill bin Laden.

So the two missions got combined and approved for a simultaneous attack.

But...if they struck the Sudan plant during what was morning in Afghanistan, there would be a great number of civilian casualties in Sudan. So the plant strike would have to be pushed ahead to after midnight, Sudan time.

Okay, follow this: The Afghanistan strike needed to be on the morning of August 20, when intelligence predicted Osama bin Laden would be present.

It was decided that the Sudan plant should be struck in the same salvo of Tomahawk missiles, at the same time.

But then the White House decision was made to change the strike hour to avoid casualties in Sudan...

...and that was long after Osama bin Laden had departed the training base in Afghanistan.

So when we read what happened the next day, we were all going, "Wut?"

My point: Even with 1998 instantanous communications capability, the left hand frequently doesn't know what the right hand is doing...and usually not why.
It's really, really difficult for the president to get involved in such militry operational minutia successfully unless a whole lot of people know what's supposed to happen. A whole lot of people.

A successful "conspiracy" operation of ordinary military forces orchestrated from the White House is simply not possible--too many people have to be involved to pull it off.

If Truman had a plan for whatever cockamamie reason to see the Nagasaki cathedral destroyed, he'd either have to be content to let it be destroyed at random as a matter of the military operations already underway, or bring in a whole lot of people in what could not be a close-held secret to make sure it was destroyed specifically.

 

[NW82]

Tin foil hat time

 

[Monna]

If that were so, why did the Japanese government not surrender following Hiroshima and came close to not surrendering even after Nagasaki?

That is my point. It wasn't the bombs that forced them to surrender, as many people suppose, and official sources use to justify dropping them on cities full of civilians.

 

[RDKirk]

That is my point. It wasn't the bombs that forced them to surrender, as many people suppose, and official sources use to justify dropping them on cities full of civilians.

You're disputing men who were there in the Japanese Imperial command at the time.

 

[Albion]

That is my point. It wasn't the bombs that forced them to surrender, as many people suppose, and official sources use to justify dropping them on cities full of civilians.

Actually it was the bombs, Monna. The fact that the Emperor refused to surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized goes to show how determined the Japanese were not to surrender. But with Nagasaki, the realization sank in that there might be any number of other A-bombs to be dropped on other cities, and this made the difference, although the advisors and military men were divided on that decision even after all of this. Prior to Hiroshima, the USA had achieved complete control of the air space over Japan and were bombing at will with conventional bombs.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually it was the bombs, Monna. The fact that the Emperor refused to surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized goes to show how determined the Japanese were not to surrender. But with Nagasaki, the realization sank in that there might be any number of other A-bombs to be dropped on other cities, and this made the difference, although the advisors and military men were divided on that decision even after all of this. Prior to Hiroshima, the USA had achieved complete control of the air space over Japan and were bombing at will with conventional bombs.

Yes, and again, the atomic bomb did not do anything that was not already being done conventionally. In another few weeks, Nagasaki would have been leveled by as much conventional bombing as it took to do the same amount of destruction.

 

[Monna]

Yes, and again, the atomic bomb did not do anything that was not already being done conventionally.

So use of an atomic bomb, with it's long term effects, was NOT necessary.

 

[Albion]

So use of an atomic bomb, with it's long term effects, was NOT necessary.

Oh yes it was. The effect, visually and in other ways, of such a terrible and previously unimagined weapon as that made quite an impression. Even today it does or would. Imagine how it was in 1945. Think also of those who were affected, miles from ground zero, by heat and radiation which hardly anybody understood at that time.

Besides, if the USA were to pursue a policy of bombing with conventional bombs, even if these did the job, it would take longer and so give the enemy hope for prolonging the war. The thought that any large Japanese city could be wiped out in a second with a single bomb like the A-bomb, however, made that line of thought a lot less sensible.

 

[RDKirk]

So use of an atomic bomb, with it's long term effects, was NOT necessary.

What made the difference was that a single bomber could do the work of several days of waves of bombers will little risk to themselves. By bombing twice in three days (the usual bombing tempo), the US signaled that it had enough bombs to make it the go-to weapon.

The long term effects of nuclear warfare were unknown at the time.

The US was still using radium for luminescent watches, clocks, and gauges until 1950. And into the 50s, the US was still walking US troops into nuclear test areas only minutes after the explosion.

The first concepts was that nuclear weapons would become common battlefield weapons, even used in artillery. It wasn't until the radiation dangers became known later in the 50s that it was realized that could not happen.

 

[Rick Otto]

Tin foil hat time

You knew what forum this is, right?

As if I went to the theology forum and said, "Oh no, somebody believes in God."

 

[NW82]

You knew what forum this is, right?

As if I went to the theology forum and said, "Oh no, somebody believes in God."

True but some theories are grounded in facts, depending on interpretation, but to say that the US Government nuked Nagasaki because of Catholics, when facts already show why... it's a bit more tin foil hat than others.