This is the same poll that was put before 150 scientists in the Manhattan Project:

http://iedllc.com/AskPeople_2_2_2/survey.php?sid=C859D7

(From io9.com)

At the end of the poll, you can see the historical answers compared to the current online poll. I find atomica like this fascinating.

Interesting,

My answer came pretty close statistically to what was chosen then, it seems the majority decision at the time didn't hold much weight since I believe there were plans to drop more bombs on Japan even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the Japanese did not surrender.

I wonder if the Germans and Japanese did similar internal polling about their nuclear programs. Any reason why the other 100 scientists decided not to respond?

Also reminded me a bit of this,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/Majority-Supports-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Japan-WWII.aspx

I'd personally choose to first do a public display of the military device, directly for the people we are threatening, if they choose not to surrender then launch it at a critical military position of the Japanese.

Sure you lose the advantage of surprise but a atom bomb doesn't even need to touch the ground (IIRC those bombs should be detonated far above ground for maximum damage) so that isn't very important anyway. What should be avoided is using it at civilian settlements/areas populated by civilians, still I don't think people thought much that way in 1945 when they just discovered a weapon that could end a war instantly :/

Yes, nuclear bombs are generally detonated above ground for maximum damage. This is also one of the reasons why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were able to recover so quickly after the detonations in comparison to Chernobyl for instance which won't recover for at least 130 more years since the "detonations" were on the ground.

Public tests wouldn't do much, the Axis nations had their own nuclear programs and had a certain degree of understanding in terms of how nuclear energy works, I'm sure they also had some idea that the other side was also building a bomb. The Allies didn't know the full effect of nuclear energy and neither did the Axis, it was only discovered after Japan was bombed and the aftermath was examined by scientists.

The decision to drop the bomb didn't just have to do with minimizing the casualties that would result from a full scale invasion, although that was a large consideration. The second consideration was to end the war before the soviets had a chance to join in. Truman didn't want to have to surrender parts of japan to the soviets like eastern europe. If you think about the possible historical course japan could have taken had part of it been controlled by the soviet union, japan is probably much better off with the dropping of the bomb; especially if you compare the economic development of japan and eastern europe. *The first time I saw a Deathclaw...well, now that's a story for a different day.*

Yeh Truman inherited a real bummer with this one.
How do you use the most effective and destructive weapon ever made, when the war is virtually over???
The big A was actually envisioned to use against Germany -but Germany had gone! Kaput - the master race are no more.
who could be the real enemy now?
Japan, well US estimates indicated it would cost in the region of a million+ US soldiers lives to conquer Japan. good reason for option 1 there.
but
Russia was, with US approval, was going to invade Japan - Korea and Japan had always been in [the now] USSRs sphere of interest - hence the Russio-Jap war of 1905 and the Siberian campaigns of 0f the 1930s.
USA demands unconditional surrender of Japan, i.e the Emporer must go
USSR is in negotiations with Japan - Japan wants to keep emperor. But they admit to being unable to demand anything as they can not mount offensives and have NO OIL or MINERAL deposits
USA say no
USA drop 2 bombs [they only have 2] and accept Japanese surrender and let them keep emperor.
USSR never get to set foot in Japan.
Japanese economy gets rebuilt with US aid.
Japanese economy builds white goods for US market.
This means US economy can continue to focus on what won it the war and created a golden age of wealth - the maintenance of the Industrial Military Complex; commercial goods now come from Japanese markets.
Problem - Japan needs local trading partners to grow in a new capitalist free market. It needs Korea and south east asia.
USSR needs Korea and South east asia too
there is your next two big wars
But unanswered threads - why drop two bombs?
demonstrate to USSR and communist countries what USA have?
Drop one bomb and they will say - 'is that all they have?'
drop two and they say - 'ffs how many of these have they got?'
Drop two and they say - 'well its the 1950s now and we have nukes, but these guys have already used em twice - lets not screw with em?'
nothing in war happens for a single reason - but hell, there seems to be enough reasons here to nuke the squidley hines out of a country who were unable to mount an offensive against anybody in 1945.
but then, nukes were not as destructive as the massive bomber fire-bombing raids. 1000 bombers dropping 1000s of tonnes of bombs killed many more in 1944-5
but 1 plane and 1 bomb, against 2 cities?
that is a demonstration of POWER
war,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,war never changes War, War never changes!
Why?
Because,
'War is the continuation of politics and policy with the admixture of other means..'

This is fascinating. Can someone post the scientists' results please? It's not coming up for me for some reason.

+1

I cannot see any of the results. Not modern, nor historical.

The historical results in their original context (published in the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, 1948)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xg0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=%E2%80%9CA+Poll+of+Scientists+at+Chicago,+July+1945,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=cDASuqissU&sig=wxJLMoKREbAKSYbN9wlx0I5UC24&hl=en&ei=4dttTPqkIY-OvQOy9ZylDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CA%20Poll%20of%20Scientists%20at%20Chicago%2C%20July%201945%2C%E2%80%9D&f=false

The actual results are poorly represented in the text, so here are the options and the numbers

1. Use them in the manner that is from the military point of view most effective in bringing about prompt Japanese surrender at minimum human cost to our armed forces.

2. Give a military demonstration in Japan to be followed by renewed opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

3. Give an experimental demonstration in this country, with representatives of Japan present; followed by a new opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed.

4. Withhold military use of the weapons, but make public experimental demonstration of their effectiveness.

5. Maintain as secret as possible all developments of our new weapons and refrain from using them in this war.

1. 15% 23
2. 46% 69
3. 26% 39
4. 11% 16
5. 2% 3

The first number is the percentage, the second is the absolute number of scientists who voted for the indicated option. The current poll results aren't showing for me either, unfortunately.

It's a fascinating topic, but the part that has always resonated loudest with me is the aftermath. In August 1946, a year after the bombing of Hiroshima, The New Yorker dedicated the entirity of their issue to a single piece by John Hersey, entitled simply "Hiroshima". The piece followed the experiences of six people who were in Hiroshima that day, all of whom survived the initial blast. Through the eyes of these six people, Hersey calmly, yet vividly, details one of the most horrific events in human history. He does so without judgement or embellishment, letting his subjects' experiences speak louder than any declaration or condemnation he could ever give.

The article is available online if you have a subscription to The New Yorker, and has also been republished in book form. It should be available in most libraries / bookstores. Maybe you'll sit and sigh, wishing that I were near
Then maybe you'll ask me to come back again
And maybe I'll say "Maybe"

What fascinates me in all these discussions, is how people forget that even with the two atomic bombs Japan's surrender was not sure thing. There was attempt at coup to prevent Emperor from surrendering Japan (and he did take his time with that). Also, people are quite eager to forget Japan's vast attrocities - like raqe of Nanking. Japanese have been very vocal about atom bombs, but callous toward their own victims (raqe, torture, starvation, enslavement, etc).

with todays knowledge of the event ,and what followed id be inclined to say they should never of even considered it .
but it did send a very clear message indeed and probably saved many more lives , but when evil acts like that are comitted the justfication of the greater good does silence any protest
as controversial as it is the then japanese army just like the nazis did torture and enslave allied troops and civilians alike as well as comitting genocide .
so i can understand why they went ahead with it ,i have heard said " evil begets evil ". EAGLES MAY FLY HIGH, BUT WEASLES DONT GET svckED INTO JET ENGINES