Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Japanese A Bomb: target san francisco

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by mille125, Apr 2, 2011.

  1. mille125

    mille125 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am new to the forum and have a question about this topic. A few sources that I have reviewed have mentioned that Japan had a plan to use an atomic bomb on san francisco and even had a date in mind in 1945. How close do you think Japan was to accomplishing this and what logistical impediments would they have faced (other than the allies closing in on them from all sides)
     
    mille125, Apr 2, 2011
    #1
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    19,108
    Likes Received:
    5,953
    They were not very close at all. They had asked Germany for some uranium ore and the sub sent with it failed to reach Japan. As for targeting, by 1945 they would have been planning to use any atomic bombs against invasion forces, so far as I can tell.
     
    OpanaPointer, Apr 3, 2011
    #2
  3. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    There was probably a plan to bomb San Francisco, as well as several other west coast cities, just in case Japan did develop a working bomb and delivery mechanism. As it sits, historically, Japan could have used to I-400's launching M6A Seirans carrying 500lbs worth of 'dirty bombs'. I am sure that if they were able to launch enough aircraft at least some would would be able to get through the coastal air defenses.
     
    formerjughead, Apr 3, 2011
    #3
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    The dangers of radiation were very much under appreciated at that point in time. I don't think anyone even considered a dirty bomb. Biologicals would have made a lot more sense particularly for a target like San Francisco.
     
    lwd, Apr 3, 2011
    #4
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    19,108
    Likes Received:
    5,953
    Downfall plans included the idea that we would move through areas cleared of enemy troops about 1/2 after the bombs were used.

    Lester del Rey's "Nerves", written in 1956, has atomic plant workers who return to work during a meltdown minutes after they have bits of radioactive material removed from their bodies.
     
    OpanaPointer, Apr 3, 2011
    #5
  6. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Hence the " " on Dirty Bomb.

    Bio weapons were a concern, more so than Atomic weapons and I would be interested to see what the health department numbers for influenza and other illnesses were for 1944/45 in the Pacific Northwest when the balloons were comming accross.
     
    formerjughead, Apr 3, 2011
    #6
  7. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,226
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Yes, biological or chemical weapons would have been a lot more sense to the Japanese. They had large stockpiles of various agents, and these would have been much easier to deliver to their targets. Delivery systems (ie: aircraft-dropped bombs) had been tested in China, and worked. A "dirty bomb" design would have had to have been perfected before being used, whereas the Japanese literally had chemical and biological weapons "on the shelves" ready for use.

    I should also add that I have never read of a source referring to a Japanese "dirty bomb", and thus would assume they had very limited knowledge on the use of radiation along (without a nuclear explosion) as a weapon. For a strike on the West Coast, asides from conventional weapons, biological or chemical agents would have been the only "real" option.
     
    George Patton, Apr 3, 2011
    #7

Share This Page