Alex WellersteinVerified account

Too hard to tell from a Powerpoint what exactly was said but looks like they missed a several important points. Was never seen as bomb vs. invade, focus on casualty question misleading. Most JCS thought Leahy estimates high. No disentangling of Hiroshima v. Nagasaki.

Fact that Japanese had small research program into fission potential does not negate "value of life" argument (nor, frankly, does Army's use of WMDs against Chinese). Japanese did not in fact offer any conditions (hinted at some, Emperor retention most important).

Overall seems like is focused on the hypothetical invasion casualties vs. bombing casualties. This framing is a postwar creation meant to justify the use of the bombs — it is not how the policymakers etc. thought about it in July 1945.

Often wonder what the actual war plan would have been if the little boy had been a dud? Would we still have dropped fatman? Have you written on the scenario of an atomic failure contingency? Thoughts?

They did not have any written contingency plans that I have ever seen. They considered Little Boy the "sure thing" though (which is part of the reason it was dropped first). Fat Man was the one they had more uncertainties about.