Taggart@mttaggart@infosec.exchange
@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange Frankly I think you're also misrepresenting the full justification, and the destruction of the city (aka civilian casualties) was absolutely a consideration. That's partially why Kokura was discounted.
And while glib, the jab about the current regime undercuts the reality that they are indeed in power and do indeed have launch authority.
I'll also add that your framing of the article ignores entirely the role of the Soviet Union in Japan's posture in 1945, which is the actual crux of the argument.
https://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#e
Eddie.@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange
@mttaggart@infosec.exchange
I pointed out the author's ignoring of the main reasons for the damage. I don't deny the role of the Soviets in the decision. And my argument wasn't about the full justification, it was about the author blatantly ignoring the primary reason why the cities were chose. If civilian deaths were the primary goal, Osaka would have been bombed first.
In grade school the Russians were barely mentioned in the battle of Berlin when it was nearly all them. I acknowledge bias when it occurs.
My takeaway is that when attacked the original victims should only fight to a stalemate to restore the previous status quo. In the current Israel//Hamas conflict, we're seeing what nearly 60 years of not having a clear victor has wrought.