3 ms·

> The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb. Tokyo had at the time a population of 1.1 million and 90,000 to 100,000 dead on t

> The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb. Tokyo had at the time a population of 1.1 million and 90,000 to 100,000 dead on the bombing of March 10th 1945. Hiroshima had at the time a population of 255,000 and 66,000 dead caused by the atomic bomb. You are right. It would have been way worse if the USA has attacked a more populated area. The situations is no less horrific because it.

slightwinder 6y ago
Speculation. Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. And Tokyo is not a city, but a region. It has naturally more population because of it's far bigger area. Whether population at the time was also denser than in hiroshima back then, do you have data for this? Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter which tool you use. The death toll depends more on the effort and will you put in, than on the bomb you use.
- fomine3 6y ago
  > Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. Tokyo was not chosen because it's too important to nuke. Demonstrate isn't the only criteria.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    Well, no. Tokyo was already attacked before, and had significant destruction received already. And some cities of tokyo even were on the initial list of targets with strategic value for the atomic bomb. If anything they did not choose it because is was not important enough. In the end they decided the target mainly by effective damage (physical as also psychological), which ruled out already attacked areas and left only a handful cities. Of those hiroshima was the best, because of size and the surrounding mountains, which made the best setup for effective demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb.

slightwinder 6y ago

Speculation. Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. And Tokyo is not a city, but a region. It has naturally more population because of it's far bigger area. Whether population at the time was also denser than in hiroshima back then, do you have data for this? Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter which tool you use. The death toll depends more on the effort and will you put in, than on the bomb you use.

fomine3 6y ago
> Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. Tokyo was not chosen because it's too important to nuke. Demonstrate isn't the only criteria.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Well, no. Tokyo was already attacked before, and had significant destruction received already. And some cities of tokyo even were on the initial list of targets with strategic value for the atomic bomb. If anything they did not choose it because is was not important enough. In the end they decided the target mainly by effective damage (physical as also psychological), which ruled out already attacked areas and left only a handful cities. Of those hiroshima was the best, because of size and the surrounding mountains, which made the best setup for effective demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb.