4 ms·

The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. Anyways, the battle of Okinawa

The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. Anyways, the battle of Okinawa alone killed as many people as both atomic bombs combined and that's the most remote part of (what is today considered) Japan.

slg 1y ago
>The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. The result of surrendering. What makes you think they wouldn't have surrendered if other targets were bombed?
- snickerbockers 1y ago
  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.
  - strken 1y ago
    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?
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      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_and_Nagasaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...

slg 1y ago

>The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. The result of surrendering. What makes you think they wouldn't have surrendered if other targets were bombed?

snickerbockers 1y ago
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.
- strken 1y ago
  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?
  - snickerbockers 1y ago
    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_and_Nagasaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...