Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#21

Post by claydavisss »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #9

That most obvious savings generated by the Manhattan Project was probably the displacement of perceived need to invade Japan. It would be nice to see an estimate of the cost of that invasion as a comparison. But the primary cost of an invasion would have been the lives of Americans and Japanese, and it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus value for that. As part of that wider comparison the cost of the destruc…

In July of 1945, Szilard and a number of other scientists involved with the Manhattan Project, signed a petition asking that Japan be publicly informed of the terms of surrender and refused then before the bomb was dropped. Not only was that simple request ignored, the US Government tried to blacklist the scientists who signed that petition. Arguing that the bombs were necessary to prevent an invasion pretends that a…

Szilard was not an elected political leader or a military leader, so why would it be assumed he could impose such a profound policy?

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#22

Post by Nomentatus »

gedy wrote: post #17
boomboomsubban wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In July of 1945, Szilard and a number of other scientists involved with the Manhattan Project, signed a petition asking that Japan be publicly informed of the terms of surrender and refused then before the bomb was dropped. Not only was that simple request ignored, the US Government tried to blacklist the scientists who signed that petition. Arguing that the bombs were necessary to prevent an invasion pretends that a…

I feel like this splits hairs a bit, as the Potsdam Declaration[1] already had warned of utter destruction unless Japan surrendered. Our firebomb raids had already demonstrated this resolve and killed more civilians than the atomic bombs, in likely more horrific ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

This is to one side of the point - many historians hold that the U.S. was keen to demonstrate the power of these bombs in order to cow the U.S.S.R., (and prove they were practical) even if it meant delaying the end of the war.

Firebombing was even more effective (but not economical) in killing Japanese civilians, as you note. However, firebombing would not have been as effective vs the Soviets (far less flimsy, compact wood construction) nor have the same effect vs ground forces: making a live demonstration of atomic bombs still useful intimidation, according to this view.

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#23

Post by claydavisss »

Nomentatus wrote: post #20
hirundo wrote: post #9

That most obvious savings generated by the Manhattan Project was probably the displacement of perceived need to invade Japan. It would be nice to see an estimate of the cost of that invasion as a comparison. But the primary cost of an invasion would have been the lives of Americans and Japanese, and it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus value for that. As part of that wider comparison the cost of the destruc…

John Toland et al, in contrast, see the Russian invasion of Manchuria as the final straw that forced Japan to surrender; Japan continued fighting after the bombs were dropped, but the U.S. did not immediately have more bombs to drop.

wrong, fatman2 was already at Tinian when Japan surrendered

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#25

Post by hirundo »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #9

That most obvious savings generated by the Manhattan Project was probably the displacement of perceived need to invade Japan. It would be nice to see an estimate of the cost of that invasion as a comparison. But the primary cost of an invasion would have been the lives of Americans and Japanese, and it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus value for that. As part of that wider comparison the cost of the destruc…

In July of 1945, Szilard and a number of other scientists involved with the Manhattan Project, signed a petition asking that Japan be publicly informed of the terms of surrender and refused then before the bomb was dropped. Not only was that simple request ignored, the US Government tried to blacklist the scientists who signed that petition. Arguing that the bombs were necessary to prevent an invasion pretends that a…

In accounting for the costs of counterfactuals I think the question is less what is possible and more what is likely. The outsized response you describe to the simple request is evidence of the strong political will for more aggressive options.

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#26

Post by rjsw »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #16
hirundo wrote: post #9

That most obvious savings generated by the Manhattan Project was probably the displacement of perceived need to invade Japan. It would be nice to see an estimate of the cost of that invasion as a comparison. But the primary cost of an invasion would have been the lives of Americans and Japanese, and it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus value for that. As part of that wider comparison the cost of the destruc…

In July of 1945, Szilard and a number of other scientists involved with the Manhattan Project, signed a petition asking that Japan be publicly informed of the terms of surrender and refused then before the bomb was dropped. Not only was that simple request ignored, the US Government tried to blacklist the scientists who signed that petition. Arguing that the bombs were necessary to prevent an invasion pretends that a…

John McCloy proposed explicitly including a description of the bomb in surrender terms too.

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#27

Post by ianai »

Retric wrote: post #10
eru wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] lots of great, high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs came out of that program. That's a pretty bad excuse: leaving the same money with the taxpayers would have funded jobs that actually did something people wanted enough to pay with their own money.

It’s not purely an excuse. If somone makes 100k on one of these projects but would have made 50k if they did not exist then the economy is out 50k worth of labor. But, some of that delta between 50k>100k is payed back in additional taxes. There is plenty of waste, but it’s significantly smaller than the direct costs suggest. Especially when such programs reduce unemployment as the economy is not out useful labor, and…

I think of it as the governmental make work program. It’s only been digestible, politically, when it’s tied to this sort of project. Without it, my home state would be severely affected.

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#28

Post by epberry »

herodotus wrote: post #19

> For example, one of the questions that people ask me again and again is how close the Germans were to getting an atomic bomb. The answer is, more or less, not very close at all. Why not? Because even if their scientific understanding was not too far away — which it was not, even though they were wrong about several things and behind on several others — they never came close to the stage that would be necessary to t…

The industrial base, and the fact that production could continue unabated by bombings on the American continent for years, was a deciding factor in the war. As were the Russians repelling Hitler. My historical perspective on this has shifted massively since first learning about the war in school. It wasn't D-Day or the Battle of Britain or Midway. All of those battles were key wins but the war overall was really organized and executed by tens of thousands of typists and mid-level managers.

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#29

Post by herodotus »

epberry wrote: post #28
herodotus wrote: post #19

> For example, one of the questions that people ask me again and again is how close the Germans were to getting an atomic bomb. The answer is, more or less, not very close at all. Why not? Because even if their scientific understanding was not too far away — which it was not, even though they were wrong about several things and behind on several others — they never came close to the stage that would be necessary to t…

The industrial base, and the fact that production could continue unabated by bombings on the American continent for years, was a deciding factor in the war. As were the Russians repelling Hitler. My historical perspective on this has shifted massively since first learning about the war in school. It wasn't D-Day or the Battle of Britain or Midway. All of those battles were key wins but the war overall was really orga…

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but in the diary of a German soldier fighting on in France he said something like "For every Krupp shell we sent to the Americans, they sent a hundred Detroit shells back."

Re: The price of the Manhattan Project (2013)

#30

Post by boomboomsubban »

gedy wrote: post #17
boomboomsubban wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In July of 1945, Szilard and a number of other scientists involved with the Manhattan Project, signed a petition asking that Japan be publicly informed of the terms of surrender and refused then before the bomb was dropped. Not only was that simple request ignored, the US Government tried to blacklist the scientists who signed that petition. Arguing that the bombs were necessary to prevent an invasion pretends that a…

I feel like this splits hairs a bit, as the Potsdam Declaration[1] already had warned of utter destruction unless Japan surrendered. Our firebomb raids had already demonstrated this resolve and killed more civilians than the atomic bombs, in likely more horrific ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

One of the goals of the Potsdam Deceleration was to be intentionally vague about the terms of surrender, and the terms were never formally rejected. It doesn't fit the guidelines of the petition, and barely counts as an attempt at peace without bombing or invasion.
Post reply on HN