|
Well, look, it can't have been an easy choice. Is the world better off for having done it? I guess probably. Hell of a thing to roll the dice about, though.
To armchair-quarterback this thing, I've often wondered why they didn't lay one bomb just off the mainland, far enough at sea that it didn't directly harm anyone. The point was the threat, not the deaths. Japan didn't say, "Ah, well, see, you've killed many of us in one shot. Darn, I guess we lose." It was the existence of the weapon itself that ended the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were demonstrations. And I wonder if there mightn't have been a less massively lethal way to demonstrate the thing.
|