I don't think regarding it as a "demonstration" is accurate either.

Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb. The thought process behind dropping it was simply "let's hit them as hard as we can until they surrender".

▲

myrmidon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb.

I disagree slightly with that take. Decisionmakers knew that those singular bombs were gonna glass an entire city each, and previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect.

If you're at a point where you can afford to slash the primary target (Kyoto) because of nostalgic value to your secretary of war then it becomes difficult to rationalize the whole thing as "normal genuine war effort" and makes the thing look somewhat of an optional choice.

But from my point of view much more questionable decisions were made than the atomic bombings, and hindsight is always 20/20.

	▲	brazzy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect. I read that this was not the primary motivation; rather, those cities were basically on the top of the "list of industrial centers we didn't get around to bombing conventionally yet, but were going to do next".

▲

davedx 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Back then, it was just another type of bomb."

To some of the military leaders, sure. To the scientists and politicians, it wasn't viewed through such a simplistic lens.