Would the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII be considered strategic nuclear weapons?

Question

Apperently some of you didn't understand the question, and some don't understand nuclear weapons at all.

Anyway, the question should have been, "Were the a bombs dropped on Japan in WWII considered strategic nuclear weapons (at the time)?"

Anyway, thank you crookmatt.

Answer 1

Duh

Answer 2

Yes they would.  But they didn't call them that back then.

Answer 3

yes they were completley strategic. hiroshima and nagasaki were port cities that also had factories that were used to build the japanese war machine. japan didn't surrendor due to the civilian casualties. they surrendered because they had to. their military machine was leveled. truman knew that is what it would take. if truman targeted civilians in other cities but didnt target the factories the war would not have ended.

Answer 4

No, the bombs of the period didn't have guiding systems and imaging to assist in guiding them to the target. Any bomb dropped without either remotely assisted targetting be it parachute, wing-fin, or propellant isn't a strategic weapon. By engineering standards. And inventory control.

Also, the nuclear bombs back then were released from a cargo-bay, the ones today are rocket prepelled. Thus technically we have no nuclear "bombs" today. We only have nuclear rockets/missiles.

*Thanks* - I admit my error, I was going by todays standards. Two former instructors in military sciences emailed me and informed me about how the bomb, bomber plane, and pilot were considered to be a strategic unit. In a way they say although they aren't all one instrument, the way they worked is the same as todays electronics doing the things of a strategic weapon of today. So my answer was wrong (for that period). I answered in comparison to todays definition. Also he pointed out that back then, it depended on the target and mission, you used what you had in your arsonal. If they were fighting a large group and needed to take out an incoming battalion or a group coming to aid in battle, then it would be tactical, because it was used for battle. But by adding a larger yeild and taking out a base, or city... then it would be strategic. I guess the terminology changed alot from back then. I was used to modern definitions.

Answer 5

With the japanese targets planned, the weapons delivered from a far away area for the desired purpose of eliminating Japan as a military threat or to force them to surrender they were most definitely Strategic weapons.

Answer 6

Very much so.  And the B-29 aircraft that dropped them were considered strategic bombers.

The theory of strategic bombing was introduced in the 1920s by Douhet and Mitchell.  Instead of bombing armies in the field and navies at sea, the homeland of the enemy would be attacked.  The purpose of that was to destroy the enemy's industrial base, thereby limited their ability to produce weapons, and to demoralize the population and lessen their will to continue the war.

The objective of the atomic bombings was to convince the Japanese to surrender, definitely a strategic objective.

Answer 7

yes at that time it was a  strategic weapon because it was designed to end the war.  

Answer 8

Not compared to the nukes and H-bombs we have now.

Answer 9

I suspect many people mix the usages of the words ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical,’ and it is interesting that ‘tactical’ can be used (in some situations) as a synonym for ‘strategic’ but ‘strategic’ is not a synonym for ‘tactical.’  However, their dictionary meanings are as follows:

strategic

1. pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of strategy: strategic movements

2. important in or essential to strategy

3. (of an action, as a military operation or a move in a game) forming an integral part of a stratagem: a strategic move in a game of chess.

Military.

a. intended to render the enemy incapable of making war, as by the destruction of materials, factories, etc.: a strategic bombing mission.

b. essential to the conduct of a war: Copper is a strategic material.

tactical

1. of or pertaining to tactics, esp. military or naval tactics.

2. characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.

3. of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.

4. expedient; calculated

5. prudent; politic

That stated, I suspect that your intended use of the ‘strategic’ is in the sense of today’s nuclear weapons.  The word is certain old enough in that its origin is [1815–25; < Gk stratégikós], but I don’t believe that it was in common military usage as applied to nuclear weapons of the time.  How ever, I do believe that they using of the atomic bombs on the Japanese would have met all of the definitions (above) for the word ‘strategic’ during the planning for their use on the Japanese even if that specific word was not used.

And yet, the use of that concept within today’s vernacular must be inclusive of the target such as, “A nuclear weapon which is programmed primarily for use against strategic targets in strategic nuclear war.”  Therefore the question must be asked were these two Japanese targets of world war two ‘strategic’ within the context of today’s world and I would have to say no.  Even so, for this perspective to have any real validity it must be considered within the context of those times (which I believe is your intent) and for that I would have to state yes because each city was a war factory center as well as a cultural center who’s destruction could change the populace’s desire to continue war.  In this context the decision to drop the bombs on these Japanese targets was little different than President Lincoln’s decision for General Sherman March through Georgia and make war on the civilian populace as well as the military.

Answer 10

they are not strategic at all. they are just mass destruction

president truman was not a very good president either. he wanted to drop them, basically no questions asked, to end the war. but he only wanted to drop it to SAVE lives, american lives, that is. who would've thought a bomb is dropped to save lives? how ironic