Comments on: The third atomic bomb: Tokyo, 19 August 1945

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:21:09 +0000

Very impressed with this erudite discussion! There’s no copy of Gordin to be had hereabouts so I haven’t much to add on the Tokyo aspect. (Though I would note that we shouldn’t assume that an atom bomb on Tokyo would inevitably destroy the Imperial Palace — it was a big city, after all, and there was still a lot left to destroy after the earlier raids.)

But apparently Richard Frank (in Downfall, 303) claims a different list of targets for the third bomb, according to a forum post:

1. Sapporo
2. Hakodate
3. Oyabu
4. Yokosuka
5. Osaka
6. Nagoya

By: Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bombs? - Page 30 - World War 2 Talk

Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bombs? - Page 30 - World War 2 Talk — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:48:56 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Bob Meade

Bob Meade — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:32:52 +0000

Perhaps this is worthy of consideration. A July 24, 1945 letter from Colonel John Stone To General Arnold.

“… 1. The following plan and schedule for initial attacks using special bombs have been worked out:

a. The first bomb (gun type) will be ready to drop between Ausut 1 and 10 and plans are to drop it the first day of good weather following readiness.

b. The following targets have been selected: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata anbd Nagasaki.

(1) Hiroshima …
(2) Nagasaki …
(3) Kokura …
(4) Niigata …

c. …
d. …
e. …
f. …
g. …
h. …

2. Two tested type bombs are expected to be available in August, one about the 6th and another the (?)th. General Groves expects to have more information on future availabilities in a few days which will be furnished you when received.

… ”

[ ref. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/31.pdf#zoom=100 ]

So, by July 24 Tokyo had been excluded from the target list for the first two bombs and subsequent bombs.

Which does not mean it could not reappear on the list as military and political needs required.

By: Ross Mahoney

Ross Mahoney — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:12:54 +0000

Stimson’s reasoning was because he liked it as he visited it on his honeymoon. Not really sound military reasoning. If suggestions were made to add Tokyo to the list the same could well have happened with Kyoto. It is, in this context, a much higer value target. I agree with Alan that Tokyo was unlikely, partly for the reasons I have alluded to but also the problem of taking out the Japanese govt and the impact that it would have upon the desire to continue the fight.

By: Alan Allport

Alan Allport — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:38:07 +0000

I’d have to see some really compelling evidence to be persuaded that Tokyo would have been a third nuclear target. You give the reason yourself above; the inevitable death of the Emperor would have made any organized end to Japanese resistance almost impossible to obtain, and surely Truman’s Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff were well aware of this.

By: Andrew Melomet

Andrew Melomet — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:43:28 +0000

The third bomb made it as far west as NAS Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, just south of San Francisco, in preparation for shipment to Tinian.

By: Jakob

Jakob — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:41:20 +0000

Ok, going back and looking at Robert S. Norris’s Bio of Groves, Racing for the Bomb, Norris quotes a letter from Groves to Marshall dated August 10:

The next bomb of the implosion type had been scheduld to be rady for delivery on the target on the first good weather after 24 August 1945. We have gained 4 days in manufacture and expect to ship from New Mexico on 12 or 13 August the final components. Providing there are no unforseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theatre or after arrival in the theatre, the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.

Apparently Marshall sent the memo back with the handwritten directive: ‘It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President.’

Groves sent a memo to Hap Arnold on the 10th suggesting that Tokyo might be added to the target list.

On the morning of the 11th Groves spoke to Marshall and ‘it was decided that no further shipments of material should be made to the Theater until the question of the Japanese surrender was decided’ (Groves letter to Thomas F Farrell.)

By: Jakob

Jakob — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:24:12 +0000

I don’t know about Kyoto – Stimson was fairly adamant about removing it from the target list. Once the Target Committee made the list and the Interim Committee made the go-ahead decision, I don’t think the list was re-visited was it?

By: Ross Mahoney

Ross Mahoney — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:10:40 +0000

Interesting. Same as you I always assumed the planned production meant that there would not be any more bombs unitl December at the earliest. As for Tokyo being the target i’m not sure and Gordin does not give a source for his guess. As you say the original recommended list of targets, decided in May, were:

1. Kyoto
2. Hiroshima
3. Yokohama
3. Kokura Arsenal

I would have thought that from this list, if we follow the reseaning that ‘test’ drops were no longer needed then Kyoto would have been an inviting target. It is the spiritual heart of Japan and had not been bombed so would have had both a primary effect of a high value morale target and a secondary effect of testing the bomb.

Indeed from the minutes of the second meeting of the targeting committee it was noted about Kyoto:

‘In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon…The Emperor’s palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.’

It interesting to note the comparison here with Tokyo.

By: Stevis

Stevis — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:01:38 +0000

Surprising. Intuitively, I would have thought Kokura would have been back on the target list. I’ll have to look into this as well.