Timeline for answer to Could a nation feasibly hide its early wartime use of nuclear weapons during World War 2? by Mon
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025 at 0:19 | comment | added | Mon | @Daniel R. Collins It was. Sometimes. As far as I recall Japanese forces at Midway maintained radio silence but their carriers broke it the moment they were bombed and started sinking. At Leyte Gulf the Japanese maintained much stricter radio silence because by that stage of the war they were so badly outnumbered that surprise became a key element of their battle plan but as soon as enemy units were located the Americans immediately dropped radio silence. | |
| Dec 18, 2025 at 0:15 | history | edited | Mon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Dec 17, 2025 at 22:15 | history | edited | Mon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 358 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2025 at 17:01 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | It would be held for at least several weeks of an operation, so "notice the instant" is inaccurate. | |
| Dec 17, 2025 at 7:36 | comment | added | Mon | @Daniel R. Collins Yes I know they did. The point is they didn't maintain it indefinitely did they? The attacking navy would be operating on a plan devised by HQ and that HQ would be as aware of the timetable implied by that plan as the Admiral commanding the fleet at sea was. So at some point they would be expecting updates. If you read some history of say the 2nd world Pacific war you'll see that radio silence wasn't strict and absolute. | |
| Dec 17, 2025 at 6:35 | comment | added | Daniel R. Collins | "The attacking nation would tend to notice the instant its ships stopped communicating with it and then disappeared." -- This point is flawed in that wartime fleets frequently followed a radio-silence doctrine throughout the operation. E.g., Bismarck in Operation Rheinubung, Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. They also had short-range TBS (talk-between-ships) systems so a fleet could coordinate without detectable signals long-distance. | |
| Dec 17, 2025 at 3:18 | comment | added | Mon | @Ralph Neutral shipping still operated freely during both world wars. But my point was they are still sets of eyes on the ocean, eyes that might see a giant flash of light on the horizon or perhaps a strange towering pillar of smoke or cloud in the far distance. Maybe they pass a drifting and dead warship days after the attack or even pick up a raft load of survivors, burnt and perhaps dying from some strange illness but still able to tell their story. War is messy and bits and pieces of it get left all over the land and/or seascape. | |
| Dec 16, 2025 at 23:37 | comment | added | Ralph J | Civilian shipping would try to stay far, far away from an invasion fleet, and the fleet itself would probably keep them away if they wandered close (since who knows if there is a radio aboard to pass targeting information to the defenders). Otherwise, though, the point is well taken that such a fleet would be pretty spread out, with the landing crafts (and their carriers/tenders) close to shore, but supply ships far enough back to be out of range of land-based guns. It'd probably take an H-bomb rather than a first-generation A-bomb to sink things that far apart, even in the best case. | |
| Dec 15, 2025 at 15:21 | history | edited | Mary | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar and punctuation
|
| Dec 15, 2025 at 8:21 | history | answered | Mon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |