This comment reads as though you didn’t read past the title.Big RR wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:26 pmI have to disagree; the strategy was to stress to the Japanese leadership the futility of keeping on fighting, just like the firebombing of Tokyo was. (or, using an earlier example, Sherman's march was) Was it inhumane? I think likely was; but was it intended to be inhumane and absent of any other strategy? I seriously doubt it. War is inhumane and messy.The decision 75 years ago to use atomic bombs was fuelled not by strategy but by sheer inhumanity
Personally, I would have preferred to bomb the emperor's palace or military headquarters, but my guess is this was rejected because there would be no one to surrender (among other reasons). And, at that time, how do you have a weapon which will end the war and save the lives of your troops (and regardless of the number it saved a great number of American lies) and not use it? We think that way now about nuclear weapons, but it was just viewed as a bigger gun then.
Nauseating so see so many defending use of atomic weapons in this thread. I guess you all think you’re smarter than Eisenhower? No, I think you all swallowed the propaganda on this issue and have never grown past it.