I find it interesting but doesn't convince me. Their timeline, 20/20 hindsight, ability to predict a future without the bombings, and definitive "we know, know!, they were unnecessary" doesn't make me think highly of their argument.
My favorite example is that the first bombing only required one initial report from the governor for the council to understand what happened. The second bombing had a similar verbal report but they had to wait another day to get the full report to understand what happened.
Never mind the fact they don't seem to grasp the significance that one bomb dropped from one plane equaled up to 10,000 bombs, or more, from around 500 planes. Is there no consideration in that leisurely dropping one bomb delivered more kilotons than a full scale air raid is a major show of force? With the obvious promise of more to come?
For my part, I would say that the bombing were not the full reason for the surrender. But they did play a major part. They faced either nuclear destruction from the US or being totally wiped out by the Soviets invading. If the Chinese didn't get their licks in too.
My favorite example is that the first bombing only required one initial report from the governor for the council to understand what happened. The second bombing had a similar verbal report but they had to wait another day to get the full report to understand what happened.
Never mind the fact they don't seem to grasp the significance that one bomb dropped from one plane equaled up to 10,000 bombs, or more, from around 500 planes. Is there no consideration in that leisurely dropping one bomb delivered more kilotons than a full scale air raid is a major show of force? With the obvious promise of more to come?
For my part, I would say that the bombing were not the full reason for the surrender. But they did play a major part. They faced either nuclear destruction from the US or being totally wiped out by the Soviets invading. If the Chinese didn't get their licks in too.