what would have happened if the atomic bomb wasnt invented?

For the atomic bomb not to have been invented, you would have needed science to have gone in a completely different direction over the last 100~150 years, with more interest in biology than physics and chemistry. I really think that it was a logical continuation given the state of science. Even without WWII, someone would have "invented" it eventually, in 1955~1960 at the latest. But if the science had gone differently, we probably would have have no "need" for the bomb, as history would have then been significantly altered.

A lot more casualties when Japan was eventually over run and a lfew more wars since then.

Did you mean if the Axis got it before the Allies?

i mean if it was never invented

Then one of the Berlin crises (1948, '61), the Korean War, or the
Hungarian Revolution becomes World War III.

Rilnator's right about the casualties over Japan without the bomb, and I guess at least at some point the cold war would have got very very warm :D

Well, among the largest war crimes of the 20th Century would never have happened, and the world would later never have a deterrent through Mutually Assured Destruction, and we may still be at war.

In a way the bomb NOT being used could be classed as a war crime as it would have dragged the war on and caused many more casualties.

The dropping of the nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a warcrime. US readers will disagree but it is a truth. Why was it a warcrime? The target was not a military base, no civilians. They are protected by the international law. This is often justified without the dropping many more would have died by an invasion of Japan. There are now many signs that the Japanese wanted to surrender. But even if they didn´t want nothing could justify the dropping on a city! The same goals, Japan to surrender and Moscow to show the US strength, which was the very primary objective, would have been achieved in dropping the bomb on an uninhabitant island- with Japanese and Soviet witnesses of course. So the dropping was a warcrime!

Adler

Originally posted by Serutan
Then one of the Berlin crises (1948, '61), the Korean War, or the
Hungarian Revolution becomes World War III.

And one of the eliberation movement from 1970-1980 will became WWIV ... and now probably will be preparations for WWV ... :cry:

Originally posted by Adler17
The dropping of the nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a warcrime.

So Truman gets on the phone to Tojo and Stalin and arranges a place (isolated of course) where a bomb could be dropped. They all agree on a time and send thier observers.
Tojo isn't convinced that the first bomb was real so they do it again- Yeah right! The Japanese were warned of the bomb and they didn't surrender straight away after the first one.
If the Japanese had the bomb would they hesitate to use it? Would the Germans? No sympathy.

I searched for "bomb" in the World History forums history, and I got 7 pages of threads. I filtered out those threads that are similar or equal to what this thread is about or what this threatens to become about.

Please, guys, let's not have all of this... again :sleep:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60791&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64794&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43326&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27608&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34570&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29947&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21994&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20491&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28403&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17995&highlight=bomb
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14284&highlight=bomb

The Japanese weren´t warned in that way. But in the way you are right how Tojo and Stalin could have been invited. And dropping a bomb on a small island with a perhaps evacuated fisher village would have had the same effect.
If Germany or Japan had dropped the bomb or not is not the question; the question was and is: Was it a warcrime to drop the bomb or not? And the only correct answer is: YES. And yes Truman should have to be made rsponsible for his deed.

Adler

IIRC Japan was told by the Allies in the declarations just prior to the bombings that if they did not surrender they would face destruction etc. It was total war, with total war you have to accept that some things are necessary to defeat an enemy so obsessed with continuing the war. As for the signs of Japan's intentions, to be frank their indications towards negotiations were to say the least lukewarm. No-one had any real idea what Japan intended, and as far as I'm concerned, it was her role to initiate peace terms suitable to the allies, not require the allies to continually lower their demands until Japan bothered to accept their worth.

Trueman DID initially order the bombs to be dropped on a military target, though the orders drafted by others and passed to those planning the raid later made no mention of it. However, with any possible scenario of bombing a Japanese target, it is difficult to imagine one that would not have caused signifigant Japanese losses. And whilst we're on the target subject, Hiroshima was targeted because it contained an important army depot, port of embarkations and heavy industry. Nagasaki I'm not sure about, other considered targets were also chosen for their military basis.

As for the suggestion of gathering the world's leaders, I think a little common sense has to be used here. In the middle of WWII do you really believe that Tojo would attend such a gathering? :confused: Though Franck suggested that this should be the case before the bombs were dropped, the Interim comittee who advised Trueman felt that a technical demonstation would be unlikely to make Japan surrender.

I don't know if it was a warcrime or not, I do know that the decision wasn't taken lightly, nor was it one that they had the benefit of hindsight in choosing. I suspect that Trueman and others took it because they felt it to be the best and least bloody way to end WWII without leaving Japan unbowed and belligerent. Ethical discussions are always nice, however, Trueman and co had to make the decision based on what they knew, not what 60 years of history has told us.

All those who do no think that Truman is a criminal, look at this link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html) .
Among the points are:
-The Japanse offered to surrender in January 1945. The offer was accepted 7 months later.
-They repeatedly ofered their surrender.
-Dwight D. Eisnhower was interviewed on newsweek in the 60s, and he said: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Th U.S bomber survey came to his conclusion in 1946:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated".

Personally, I consider it a terrible warcrime. Civilians play no part in warfare. Many many more lives would have been lost if the USA did invade Japan, but they would have been those of themilitary, who are legitimate targets under international law. Japan caused an almost insignificant aount of casualties on the American homeland; the USA hit them with everything they had.

Originally posted by Adler17
The dropping of the nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a warcrime
Adler

So you're saying that the firebombing in Dresden and Tokyo WEREN"T war crimes? (More died in Dresden than Hiroshima by the way) Or the London Blitz by the Luftwaffe was not a war crime? Or the leveling of Berlin by American and British bombers weren't a war crime? Or the decimation of Stalingrad and the starvation of Leningrads populace by the German Army wasn't one either? I don't get it, is there a magic number of people you need to kill before it's considered a war crime?

It was a world war, unfortunately there were war crime charges that could have been handed out to ALL parties like parking tickets. We just wanted the war to end with the lowest amount of casualities (american and japanese) so in reality it was a good thing that they were dropped.

Nonconformist

It's interesting to note that despite all those "facts" not many times does there appear to be any references listed for where they originate so they can be checked for accuracy. It's further interesting to note the author's almost rabid anti-communist thoughts and he seems to see conspiracies at every turn, for example blaming the Marshal plan for wrecking US dominance of the global markets and calling it a soviet scheme to cripple the US. He calls McArthur a great war hero, one presumes because he wanted to nuke the Communists... Macarthur, the man I've seen quoted as being against bombing civilians in Japan with the nuclear bomb. A quote I've seen used on similar sites. A quote that conviniently sidesteps his total lack of concience about nuking North Korea less than a decade later.

He also calls FDR a communist stooge, saying he cared more for Russia than for America, at another a traitor who allowed Pearl to happen in order to support international communism. As interesting as this page is, I would presume to require a bit more balanced and supported evidence before we rewrite our history books on the word of an avid isolationist and rabid communist hater who sees conspiracies everywhere. :rolleyes:

Thread hijacked, beyond all recognition fr initial 'what-if' scenario.

Closed.