Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 3:08:44-3:09:59

Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not simple proof of bombing theory

Atomic attacks introduced the threat of repeated city annihilation, making their coercive effect different from the interwar promise that conventional bombing alone would force surrender.

CoercionHiroshimaNagasakiNuclear WeaponsStrategic BombingTokyo Firebombing
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Do Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that a city can be bombed into submission?

Short answer

They show the coercive power of nuclear annihilation, which is different from the interwar claim that conventional bombing of cities would independently win a war.

Notes

Hiroshima and Nagasaki challenge the claim that cities cannot be bombed into submission. A nuclear weapon changes the threat from repeated conventional damage to the possible annihilation of whole cities. Conventional firebombing, especially against Japanese wooden urban construction, could also be catastrophically destructive. The political signal came from the prospect that atomic destruction could be repeated. The atomic case therefore provides different evidence from the high-explosive and gas-bombing theories developed between the world wars.