Conserative Morality wrote:Anemos Major wrote:By the end ofthe war, most of the population was disillusioned by the whole affair. ANyways, there was no such thing as the IJA by that point; it'd been all but wiped out. At the very least, you could have used the atomic bomb in a Show of Force near Tokyo, instead of dropping it on a major city. Nagasaki was a major port, so it's partly justifiable. But Hiroshima? I mean, exactly what purpose did that serve?
Remember; at the beginning of WWII, you had fanatical Nazi soldiers shooting at the enemy. By the end, the same Heer troops were gunning down SS officers so they could desert. Morale is a powerful thing, and Japan had none left.
While I agree that we could have dropped the bomb somewhere else, they were ready to pull out the suicide bombers if we invaded. Either way, the Atomic had/would have saved thousands of lives.
Actually, I remember reading somewhere the losses would have been lower than suggested. The military actually gave no accurate indication whatsoever of how many marines and servicemen would have been lost, ranging from 31k to 200k, when actually it was their own desires to participate or not, including using the atomic weapons. So, I think since the US had bombers, fighters, artillery/naval artillery, and such the losses would be lower.
And about Hiroshima not being a military target, the military wanted to use it on a civilian population, so as to prove what they could do with one bomb, as military targets were already being wiped out. And on Tokyo it would lead to hatred against the US if it killed the Emperor or wounded him, same with the city itself.
