After more thorough research.

I’ve conceded that Hiroshima’s necessity is more ambiguous from a utilitarian standpoint.
(From a moral standpoint, it makes the blitz look like petty vandalism.)
Had I been in charge I would have hit a military target as an ironic, large scale reminder of Pearl Harbor, sent the leader a message to survey the damage and that this new weapon will be unleashed on his doorstep next.
I think he would have surrendered, documents lead me to believe the Japanese leader was more concerned about protecting his own status than anything else…

However, even if we concede that Hiroshima’s bombing was a horrible, but calculated necessity, the Nagasaki was an egregious redundancy.
The damage from the first could not have been surveyed in TWO DAYS, and you’ll have to leave a message if he doesn’t respond right after it.

With renewed conviction… My final verdict:
Nagasaki was wrong, even IF we concede to the necessity of Hiroshima.

Advertisements