Why strategic-bombing history reaches Hiroshima and Nagasaki

A discussion of films about Allied strategic bombing turns to the difficulty of portraying Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The comparison weighs service personnel's lives against civilian casualties and the uncertain prospects of ending the war through conventional bombing, naval bombardment, blockade, or invasion. None of those alternatives offers a casualty-free outcome, and their hypothetical results cannot be established from the decisions that actually occurred. The discussion rejects a simple moral verdict and stresses how much uncertainty short public arguments leave out. A later answer says chemical attack before an invasion was considered, while questioning whether the legacy of First World War gas warfare would have allowed its use. Another exchange challenges a purely resource-based explanation of Soviet entry by pointing to the existing submarine blockade around Manchuria. Retaining the emperor is also identified as a factor in surrender. These are parts of a debate over the end of the war, with the relative importance of its causes left unresolved.