Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyT
As I posted above, it's clear that 200k dead was certainly better than the tens of millions an invasion would have caused, but also I don't totally see why we couldn't have just dropped the first a-bomb on a completely uninhabited area of Japan as a massive warning shot with the threat that the next one would be dropped on Tokyo if they refused to surrender.
|
Well I guess this answers my question:
Quote:
|
U.S. President Harry S. Truman was unaware of the Manhattan Project until Franklin Roosevelt's death. Truman asked U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to head a group of prominent citizens called the Interim Committee, which included three respected scientists and had been set up to advise the President on the military, political, and scientific questions raised by the possible use of the first atomic bomb. On May 31, Stimson put his conclusions to the committee and a four-man Scientific Panel. Stimson supported use of the bomb, stating "Our great task is to bring this war to a prompt and successful conclusion." But Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the Scientific Panel members, stated that a single atomic bomb would probably kill twenty thousand people, and the target should be a military one, not civilian. Another scientist, Dr. Arthur Holly Compton, suggested dropping the bomb on an isolated part of Japan to demonstrate its power while minimizing civilian deaths. But this was soon dismissed, since if Japan was to be notified in advance of an attack, the bomber might be shot down; alternately, the first bomb might fail to detonate.
|