In reading this Washington Post article titled Five myths about the atomic bomb, it's mentioned:
The decision to use nuclear weapons is usually presented as either/or: either drop the bomb or land on the beaches. But beyond simply continuing the conventional bombing and naval blockade of Japan, there were two other options recognized at the time.
The first was a demonstration of the atomic bomb prior to or instead of its military use: exploding the bomb on an uninhabited island or in the desert, in front of invited observers from Japan and other countries; or using it to blow the top off Mount Fuji, outside Tokyo. The demonstration option was rejected for practical reasons. There were only two bombs available in August 1945, and the demonstration bomb might turn out to be a dud.
(emphasis is mine)
I can't find any corroborating evidence to this through googling, but this seems crazy to me if only because the effects of bombing Fuji-san could surely be more catastrophic than bombing a conventional target--for example, if the bomb happened to catalyze an eruption, which could also catalyze major earthquakes.
So my questions are:
- Did the US really consider demonstrating the atomic bomb to the Japanese by "blowing the top" off of Mt. Fuji?
- If so, was any analysis done, by people with appropriate geological expertise, to estimate the risk this could carry to catalyze major eruptions or earthquakes?