Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the
IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren’t especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign, and it was more a way to test out their new toys. If the nukes hadn’t been used but conventional bombing had continued, it would likely have had a similar result. This video by Shaun lays out a pretty compelling case that the Japanese surrender was due to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.
This is all ignoring of course that despite the insistence of unconditional surrender, the Americans accepted surrender with conditions and allowed the emperor to continue to hold his titles anyway. There’s definitely something to be said about taking maximalist positions just to make a point even when they don’t actually care about several of the goals that make up those positions.
Are you saying that using nukes against civilian populations was equivalent to conventional bombing because of “the damage”? What point are you trying to make here?
And as a demonstration for any would-be challengers (one in particular, and we all know who) to the emerging US hegemonic dominance, a demonstration not just of the destructive capacity of nukes but of their willingness to use it.
IIRC the damage inflicted by the atomic bombings weren’t especially noteworthy compared to the rest of the bombing campaign, and it was more a way to test out their new toys. If the nukes hadn’t been used but conventional bombing had continued, it would likely have had a similar result. This video by Shaun lays out a pretty compelling case that the Japanese surrender was due to the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.
This is all ignoring of course that despite the insistence of unconditional surrender, the Americans accepted surrender with conditions and allowed the emperor to continue to hold his titles anyway. There’s definitely something to be said about taking maximalist positions just to make a point even when they don’t actually care about several of the goals that make up those positions.
Are you saying that using nukes against civilian populations was equivalent to conventional bombing because of “the damage”? What point are you trying to make here?
And as a demonstration for any would-be challengers (one in particular, and we all know who) to the emerging US hegemonic dominance, a demonstration not just of the destructive capacity of nukes but of their willingness to use it.