• lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    No, the targeting committee was very clear that the targets were selected mainly based on spectacle and effect.

    They purposely kept a few cities in a “pristine” (or as close as possible) by disallowing other bombings so when the nukes were finished the before and after would look more dramatic.

    The fact that they could just ignore these cities before dropping the nukes shows that the targets were of little to no military value

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No, the targeting committee was very clear that the targets were selected mainly based on spectacle and effect.

      That’s not my understanding at all, only just that having witnesses was a side effect, but not the primary reason.

      From what I remember from watching documentaries there were military targets in the cities, I think (don’t hold me to it) bomb making factories.

      Feel free to pass on some links if you know otherwise, as history is always a learning experience. (See edit below.)

      Edit: Looking at the Wiki page, under the section about targeting, it mentions this about Hiroshima…

      Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters

      … and…

      Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage.

      The wiki article does mention what you’re stating as well, so in essence we’re both right, though I would still argue that the military objective was primary, and the spectacle as you call it was secondary, even if it was a close secondary.