4 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoYou'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 agoThat 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...