The Atomic Bomb: Crash Course History of Science #33 

maybe 9000 of them can .just maybe

If you've never listened to the podcast "Do Go On" I highly recommend their episode on "The Great Emu War." - Nick J.

Your profile picture nailed it. :)

Who gets the joke from oversimplified Like if u do

What did it mean?

RomanianJ96 No Japan couldn’t win. We’d just blockade them and starve them out.

Bad Beard Bill We already were blockading them and they still weren’t giving up. All of Japan was starving and the high command had decided they didn’t care how many Japanese died or how long it took. As long as the Allies never successfully invaded the home islands they felt they could just wait out the Allies.

@@RomanianJ96Except they couldn't. They needed the resources of other lands, otherwise they wouldn't have even built their empire. They relied on those resources. Their people were starving. Eventually they all would've died, leaving a dead island chain.

Bad Beard Bill And the Japanese high command were willing to pay that price. I’m not arguing over whether they would have won World War 2, that was impossible even after Pearl Harbor. I’m arguing about their resolve. If Hirohito hadn’t strong armed the military high command into capitulating, we would see Operation Downfall happen, which MacArthur wanted to use nukes to soften up the beaches. These landings would’ve most likely failed since it was a 1:1 ratio when the Japanese surrendered between invader and defender, and the Japanese were not even done fortifying Kyushu. The blockade would’ve taken years and Truman was worried about the American public losing interest in carrying out this expensive war. Plus, he was worried about letting the Soviets expand their influence into East Asia just as they had done in Europe. There were no good or easy decisions to be made. Starving out an entire country is a hard and bloody task to achieve. Especially when you’re starving out a people who are willing to suffer whatever it takes to force you to end the war somewhat favorable to them.

@@RomanianJ96The high command may be willing to fight but they don't matter. The people do. If they refuse (and they likely would eventually) then it doesn't matter if the leaders are willing to pay that price. What matters is whether or not the people are. Sure, some wouldn't. But many would. And even if they don't refuse the Japanese Empire had enormous trouble just feeding their soldiers. Feeding their people would be even more difficult and their entire population would be effectively useless as combatants.

And should also help your enemy get one ASAP. Whole point of M.A.D to have both sides weapons so powerful that open conflict is out of questions and you can get back to normal peaceful lives (no point in waging war anyway)

Though Truman didn't know this at the time. Stalin knew far more about the Atomic bomb even at Potsdam that Truman ever did. I'm not exactly sure that the two statements are mutually exclusive though. 'It's fear us while we have this superiority, try to acquire it asap to level, and then escalate, the field.' Which looking at extant declassified records from the CCCP is pretty much how it was actually taken.

Yeah but the enemy at the time simply couldn’t. Then the Russians got some...

@@SK_2521Those times are over. Military Analysists came to conclusion that 90% of the American Military Staff thinks they can win a Nuclear War. Also there are mutch more voices in Favour to use NBC weapons then 30 years ago.

What about the Japanese plants that blew up?

Yes ask the man whose livelihood and career depend on you thinking Nuclear plants are safe... A world run on reactors is entirely impossible without constant meltdowns. The numbers are just not on your side.

@@user-eq2re6df4v Japan had a very weak regulatory culture and the company ignored the safety recommendations of the manufacturer and the government.

What would you personally see as the most viable current or near-future reactor design if you got the chance to commission the building of one? If you could elaborate a little that would be great, Reactor design has always been interesting to me but i´m obviously far from an expert on the subject.

ciaphas cyne By that logic any scientist cannot be judged as an expert in their field.

Same

The Mongols were the A-bomb of the 13th century. Just like the Huns in the 5th. In fact, the entire churning ocean of the steppe peoples has always fascinated me as a counterweight to coastal civilization. At least until the widespread use of firearms. : \

@@BubblewrapHighwayIt actually got interesting after the invention of firearms. Before that Empires would conquer and rule over territories much much longer.

@ This might actually be true. Wiki estimates the fatalities from the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs to be 226,000 at most, and fatalities from the Mongol empire are measured in the millions.

It didn't leak much, but I wouldn't call a meltdown harmless.

@@FreeOfFantasy Fair, although I'm under the impression no one was harmed. Would you call it "terrible"?

@@dawarmage Three Mile Island was an example of proper safety protocols preventing a disaster. It most definitely was not a disaster.

@@FreeOfFantasy it was harmless. It harmed no one. It released less radiation than someone living in Santa Fe receives in a day.

The only people it harmed were the people who invested money in the plant. They received tremendous damage to their wallets.

This sorta reminded me of the original SciShow GMO episode. GMOs, Nuclear Power, and Anti-Vax seem to be the three big anti-science boogeymen that are quite popular in liberal circles (that doesn't mean they aren't popular in conservative circles as well). While he hasn't fallen for the anti-vax nonsense, he did fall for the anti-GMO nonsense until his video gave him a rude awakening, and this video reveals at least a slight anti-nuclear bias as well.

Using NBC weapons because you dont want to loose soldiers (in WAR) is the dumbest excuse ever.

Almost ALL war is, to an extent, all about spendings (Hell, Extra History made a great mini-series about how WW2 was greatly influenced by resources and logistics rather than simple good-vs-evil). Even so, it worked.

Riccardo S millions of civilians would’ve died in a mainland invasion of Japan

@@MMenyan That is also the imperial Germany war flag. You don't gain anything by using it. If you insist on not showing swatstikas, pixel it. Everybody knows what symbol has to be there.

Agree here. Primary because German Reich and modern Germany are two completely different states. And showing modern flag in this video's contexts undermine the fact that germans repented their sins

"Ribbons and flags are symbols and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded." -George Carlin

Dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub.... Destroyer of worlds

No i

Guys, guys, we ALLL know who is the destroyer of worlds....ME

Yeah, I was like “what?” I think it’s generally agreed that dropping the bomb, saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

Do Historians agree? I found the Gar Alperovitz articles, but he's one guy and while his points may be sound, he doesn't represent "historians" as a whole. I found a good article here though (search Washington Post "How the Hiroshima Bombing is Taught"). It has links to public opinion (in the US and around the world), and how history textbooks are taking more evidence into consideration. Evidence like dissenting voices at the time of decision, and the effect it had on the victims. Personally I think that restricting how we talk about the bomb as a "necessary evil" is incredibly stupid. We need to take into consideration whether there were alternatives, and all the facts at the time. Not just the facts that preserve the belief that all our decisions were correct. If you have evidence that this is an open and shut case, I'd love to hear it.

Joseph Ramirez I think it’s a little of both. A bit cause it was better than invasion and a bit as a way to show it off to the Soviets. Basically there was no one reason but a multitude reasons they dropped the bomb

@@Nostripe361 Yes, I agree. There are many factors which affected the creation and use of the atomic bomb. This is not so black and white as some like to portray it. Alperovitz is one of the foremost revisionists on this topic and it is good to have historians examining this event from all different points of view. But one voice does not a majority make. I generally like John Green and I find his Crash Course series informative and generally reliable. However, we have to be careful, as historians, not to speak in absolutes too easily. "Always" "most" "never".....these are hard to prove. And if you make these statements, you need to back them up with solid sources.

@@christophermiller1703 History is almost always a murky gray. Even the most evil men of history have done a few good things even if outweighed by the evil they have wrought. And likewise even greatest hero of the past has dark sins in their closest. Not to mention alot of it will always be inference based on what we have as evidence. However people and historians don't like that. They want easy answers that can be viewed as 100 percent true. Which is why you should look at all historical viewpoints

Can you tell this to the people trying to ban guns?

Neither should you leave hammers near children

Well said. It's a bit nerve wracking, but I didn't die in a trench war before my 21st birthday. So there's that.

The problem with this, if it is indeed true, is that with nuclear weapons one slip is already too much. As horrible as it was we could recover from the second World War. It is doubtful whether we could recover from a nuclear war.

You better watch the documentation the Antrax Dealers, it will give you goosebumbs when you see that the US has vaccinated every Soldier,Doctor;Policemen,Nurse and Firemen against Antrax. Seems like preparations for me

Such strange coincidences

Tracy Ward That struck out to me too

That probably depends on what country are you from.

Yea. The invasion would've taken far more lives than the bombs did.

@@alexanderwasley5105 Possibly but that is also why it is still so hotly contested today. Japan as a nation was prepared to continue fighting to the bitter end but a nation is not an individual person and the war was already taking a toll on those very persons. By spring 1945 it was well understood that if the war continued, the Japanese would eventually see American boots on the Japanese mainland which in itself was terrifying but also terrifying was a united front of America and the USSR as they understood that while America might be somewhat civil (wartime atrocities not-withstanding) the soviets might not be so clean in their fighting. This was not only on the minds of the Japanese gov't but also on the minds of the soldiers and civilians who would have to endure the invasion, bombings, and ultimately street fighting. Would the Japanese just completely surrender once allied troops landed? Obviously not; but would a prolonged multi-year conflict with hundreds of thousands of US casualties and a million Japanese casualties occur like is publicly theorized? Most likely not. The Japanese resources were drained, their weapon stocks dwindling, their navy nearly entirely annihilated, and a sort of pseudo-blockade was already in place to prevent outside aide; and probably most telling, their morale was fading quickly and the will to fight of the everyday citizen was getting lower and lower. Another potential issue involved that very coalition. We already understood that the Soviet sphere of influence was going to increase with Germanys fall and not even a decade later we would see this with Korea, looking at it from today it would almost certainly end with a divided Japan with Soviet and US partitions just like Korea. This would have been a reason to get the US in as quickly as possible without allowing the soviets to get any footholds despite being an "ally". While there are other factors that were unique to Korea which ultimately culminated in the Korean War, notably the long standing issue of Korea (under Kim) wanting to stop the centuries long issue of constant invasion, it isn't hard to see an east/west germany or north/south korea issue developing in a divided occupied Japan. While we will never know the true extent of such a conflict, If it is from purely a casualty perspective as many like to point out here is my issue: its believed that had an invasion occurred, the Japanese would have sued for peace after only a few months due to those issues listed above and so the question still stands of the risk-cost analysis of the aftermath: Was 200,000 Japanese casualties, the vast majority of which were non-combatant citizens, lower or higher than a proper conflict involving soldiers? Is a soldier worth more or less than a civilian when calculating this? War is already complicated enough both during and in the retrospect but once we opened pandoras box of the nuclear option it changed the paradigm in such a way that Oppenheimers quotation is even more pressing: We, humanity, have "become death", and we will have to contend with that and question our decision for the rest of human history if we plan to not finish his quotation and become the "destroyer of worlds".

True story. Imagine trying to explain to the families of all the Americans lost in the invasion that you had a war-ending superweapon and didn't use it.

He did, because he doesn't understand the perception people had at that time.

@jaydee040 It was aimed at the govt, by wiping out it's people and their resolve.

my glorious leader

I liked your video now

Kim Jong-un what about tsar bomba?

You should try a Jägerbomb, you'll never go back.

@@MMenyan Lol

Why should there be

@@DRsideburns because most powerful nuclear bomb

Good point, I was waiting for that and then forgot all about it.

Uh dude, this's supposed to be a quick and roughly accurate video, not a totally percise one. Even if they include that in, there would be another guy who said that another piece of information should be in there, and this will never stop. It's much better to make videos like this that are roughly correct and interested audiences can look up deeper facts later on.

@@quangho8120 What an absolutely horrible opinion.

@@TheMattTrakker again, I said I think it's good to make roughly correct videos. If it's not roughly correct then yeah it's bad

Queenie Keung omg I remember reading that in primary school as part of the curriculum

Queenie Keung oh and btw it’s spelt leukaemia

Oh thank you so much for the correction:D also Omg wow

They're afraid of offending the snowflakes.

@@jvigil2007 more like youtubes algorithms. Why not just pixilate it?

If they show the Swasthik the video will be banned in Germany and other nations.

it's not the Russian flag, it's the USSR flag!

@@jvigil2007 or maybe they wouldn't want to risk having this video banned in germany? not everything is about snowflakes lmao

Just Leave The Nuts Hangin Out Yeah. But they can be made cleaner... by hurting their yields.

I dont know if you are speakin about Russian nukes, but im 100% sure US nukes use Tritium and Plutonium to get the biggest yelds. Wich happens to be a very clean Nuclear bomb.

This is about the weapon of the nuclear bomb, not the energy production.

Imagine if the bomb produced a minature sun that lingers for decades after exploding.

There was also negotiation. Japan had been making overtures since the loss of Iwo Jima, but that is a long story.

@@TheSmileMile not really, it basically comes down to the Allies demanding unconditional surrender and the Japanese refusing that.

@@jvigil2007 Except, they didn't actually surrender unconditionally. One of the provisions they wanted was that the Emperor would not be tried for war crimes, and that he would be allowed to remain as Emperor, though with drastically reduced authority. We didn't offer that provision in the Potsdam declaration, even though some of our military advisers said it was the only thing the Emperor would go for, but we did offer it unofficially after the usage of the Atomic bombs. The Emperor's will was absolute, if he told you to fight, you fought, but if he told you to surrender, you surrendered. Convincing the Emperor to give up was all that mattered.

@@TheSmileMile that's true, but there were other conditions that the Allies refused and the Japanese pushed for until they finally gave up after the bombs were dropped

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the potential Japanese casualties that had any impact on American decision-making. They were already readily firebombing Japanese cities by then, for the express purpose of killing as many people as they could ('demoralizing the enemy', as they probably justified it to themselves), after having just finished doing the same to the Germans. If there were any lives that concerned them, it was only their own.