|
|
|
|
|
|
by madaxe
4785 days ago
|
|
|
The use of nuclear weapons on civilians was not necessary. They could have chosen a military target. The shock and awe of losing an entire division would have been entirely adequate, and Japan was ready to surrender after Hiroshima - Nagasaki is utterly unsupportable, given the USSR's declaration of war, and Japan's impending capitulation. I know the history perfectly well, hence my view. |
|
|
Anyway, a quick look at Wikipedia gives us this.
During World War II, the 2nd General Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Looks like a military target to me. They just lacked the foresight not to locate such assets within a civilian population. Sadly, the US does the same thing.
Granted, Nagasaki didn't seem to have quite as much in military assets but it is listed it had 9000 soldiers in the city. Sadly that came nowhere near the number of civilians in the city, which included a number of POWs. I wouldn't have picked it as a target.
But if you want to demonstrate the destruction caused by a weapon in an effort to force surrender, you don't bomb a soft target. You unfortunately bomb the biggest target you can. During WWII firebombings of entire cities was a common practice. That is common in total war scenarios.
Personally, if I were in a position to have some influence on the matter at the time, I would have said the same. I would have nuked any military target of suitable size and hoped that it would suffice to force surrender.
But, as I stated elsewhere, this discussion has little to do with my initial complaint of stating the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger with no context to explain the reasoning behind it.