Antoninus Verus said:I agree that the attacks were necessary to end the war, but it was NOT necessary to drop them on cities. An empty stretch of land or mountain would have been equally impressive. Rather than shooting them in the head, shoot the ground next to them and say "Do it or the next one flies at your skull." We didnt NEED to nuke the cities, we WANTED to. We DID need to use nukes, but not on civilian targets, innocent people
The supply of nuclear devices was limited. The largest number I've seen available before the start of the invasion in Japan in November was 4. Thus, each had to be used as if the Japanese would not have surrendered. What if we use one on Mt. Fuji (as a random example) and the Japanese decide not to surrender? Then we've used up 1/4 of our supply of A-bombs. So, instead, we hit Hiroshima, the HQ of a Japanese army, home to 4,000 officers in Hiroshima Castle alone and the city with the highest soldier:civilian ratio in Japan. Kyoto, a city with a larger population and a great deal of religious significance, was removed from the target list because it lacked any military value. The US went after the best target it could find.
Upvote
0