Steve (as 41oo) wrote:It is on record that diplomatic channels were open through the Swiss before Hiroshima.
The Japanese embassy in Switzerland did take it upon themselves to defy their national government and try to pursue peace. But since they were not acting in the name of the Japanese government, they had no real authority to achieve anything.
The actual government of Japan did not try to surrender through the Swiss until August 10, after Nagasaki. We responded by pausing the third A-bomb for three days to see if they were about to accept our surrender terms.
Now, the Japanese government did try to contact the Soviets before Hiroshima, but this was not an attempt to accept our terms, but rather a scheme to get us to let them get away with unacceptable terms.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:What would radiation do to the enemy's capacity to continue war fighting?
That certainly wouldn't have been answered by the bombings, as we used airbursts.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote: How can we best protect ourselves from possible enemy use of atomic weapons?
These were big questions that could only be answered by using it against a live target.
The question as to how to protect against A-bombs was answered mostly by tests done under controlled conditions, where we could demonstrate how various shocks would damage various types of construction.
The same testing would also have provided an adequate answer as to what it would do to a city.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:I believe the argument that the a-bombing avoided the necessity of invasion and hence saved lives should be weighed against arguments of American strategic interests in 1945.
Our strategic interests in 1945 were largely concerned with making the enemy accept our surrender terms.