Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise.
Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.
The most memorable line from the movie Patton (I don't know if General Patton said this IRL):
Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
What about those who have no opinion one way or the other about your death, or are incapable of having an informed opinion, such as very young children?
So the children will die if they must die. And they will live if it does not affect victory.
If you dig deep into retrospective analyses of wars, you’ll find plenty of discussion about mistakes, missed opportunities and just dumb luck.
That's begging the question - was a US invasion the only alternative? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or... argues that Japan would have surrendered without the bombings. And that's for unconditional surrender - a conditional one would be even more easily achievable.
Furthermore the article is self-contradictory, e.g. first it says the conventional bombings were so successful that a nuclear wasn't necessary, then it says since the conventional bombings were unsuccessful the nuclear strikes also wouldn't make a difference (pure conjecture by developers of the weapon, who are no experts in neither politics nor military strategy or history).
It's also simply a lie that the casualty estimates were pulled out of thin air. Ask yourself: don't you think the US army would try to estimate how many of its soldierd would die (cost) vs how many Japanese soldiers would die and how many military targets would be destroyed (benefit)? Of course they did a huge study on this topic!
The article also suggested the Japanese would've surrendered if key people had been left in power. Yeah, maybe (again conjecture). But for comparison: if the US had allowed Hitler to go unpunished, conquered territory to remain under Nazi possession, the Nazis would also maybe have surrendered earlier. But why would you even offer such a surrender? It would render the entire war pointless.
And from the Allied perspective, after the Bataan death march, the massacre of surrendered US troops and civilians in Wake, and the hundreds of similar massacres of surrendered allied troops, and rape and murder of nurses and civilians, across the Pacific, no one was going to allow the Japanese leadership or military off the hook.