Kasz216 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
Kasz216 said:
2) Scale, ignores the main fear of nuclear weapons, even before they got big. Which is that it literally only takes one bomb. There is no real defense or chance of inflicting casualties.
Sure the Nuclear bombs weren't near the worst bombings to occur in the war, they however were the most "unfair."
At this point instead of trying to cause deaths here and there and negotiate for a better peace it just becomes something a lot more hopeless... even in the terms of just trying to lose but eek out something of value.
Russia was no doubt a major fear and played a big part in it... but Nuclear weapons in the end seems like what forced their hand.
|
Why would it matter that it was nuclear bombs instead of conventional weapons when 86 other cities were successfully attacked in levels equivalent to nuclear bombs in destruction and civilian casualties? Obviously the Japanese were unable to stop the destruciton of cities at this point by the US air power.
|
because the japanese weren't so much trying to stop the bombings... as they were kill americans. You've got the motivations wrong.
The US burns a Japanese city to the ground, but loses 5-6 planes in the process. That's what the japanse wanted if you read direct japanese sources at the time. They simply wanted to grind the US down, trading thousands of lives for small amounts of american ones.
When it's just 1 bomb? That makes it near impossible to ensure any casualties.
Attrition tactics became usless... and that was all they had.
|
This might be true even though it sounds insane. Giving up whole cities to take out 5 American planes at a time? I don't know how that would improve their situation in the negotiations much later. But military and political leaders throughout history have made some pretty insane calculations so I can't say that what you said is wrong.
