An atomic strike on Iwo Jima would probably kill most of the garrison before troops landed after radiation declined. The option is described as horrific, although a fortified military target creates a different ethical argument from attacking a city. Iwo Jima was being captured as preparation for operations against Japan, whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified at the time as attempts to avoid the invasion itself. Similar weapons counterfactuals can therefore rest on different strategic purposes.
Notable Point · 3:06:15-3:07:04
The atomic-bomb counterfactual at Iwo Jima
A grim counterfactual weighs using an atomic bomb against a fortified military island while distinguishing that purpose from the attacks intended to avoid invading Japan.