Re:Hiroshima (1946)
by snickerbockers on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:29AM
(#44794904)
I'm sure there could have been other targets that would have led to a surrender but if the goal is to do so with a minimal amount of casualties then i find it extremely difficult to believe that it is possible considering that the two targets which were bombed nearly failed to produce the desired result even after a brutal 8-year war.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
You're assuming a linear relationship between civilian casualties and Japanese military leadership's willingness to surrender. Why would e.g. dropping the first bomb on a less-populated shipyard and the second on a city centre have been less effective?
Re:Hiroshima (1946)
by snickerbockers on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @08:24PM
(#44806217)
That was Hiroshima. Although there was a high number of civilian casualties it was actually chosen on the basis of its importance to the Japanese imperial army, both as a base and an industrialized city.
>Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[78] It supported a large war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118]
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...