4/29    little history quiz: why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki chosen?
        why not tokyo?
        \_ Duh, obviously because Godzilla had already done so much damage to
           Tokyo what was the point of that?
        \_ Tokyo housed much of the Japanese Government.  The Allies had to
           have some government left with which to work in post-war occupation
           and rebuilding.  Also, Truman personally objected to destroying any
           of the historical landmarks or architecture in Tokyo and Kyoto.
           Had the US destroyed say the Japanese imperial palaces, I think the
           post-war occupation and rebuilding of Japan would have been very
           different and difficult.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities that,
           while civilian, were home to mostly military/industry.  --Jon
           \_ I saw an interview with a guy who survived Nagasaki.  He said it
              was the local populace's theory at the time (pre-bombing) that
              they were not being conventionally bombed because the Americans
              were saving the cultural treasures in his city.  I don't know if
              Nagasaki had any true cultural treasures more than any other
              city but I do know Tokyo had been previously bombed
              conventionally and the Americans wanted 'fresh' cities to nuke
              so they could do clean damage assessment afterwards.  *OR* you
              could go along with my Godzilla theory mentioned earlier.
              \_ "fresh city" for damage assessment is also a good reason,
                 but Kyoto, which was on the target list, was also an
                 unbombed list.  There were many reasons for !Tokyo and for
                 !Kyoto.  --Jon
                 \_ I think the main reason though was definitely fear of
                    waking Godzilla.  Although this happened later circa
                    1999-2000, NYC was spared ~55 years of monster damage
                    and repeat visits.
              \_ I read a long article on Reader's Digest maybe 20 years ago
                 written by one of the flight crew that dropped the bombs.  It
                 said one reason to choose those two cities was that they
                 haven't been bombed, so the Japanese govt wasn't expecting the
                 US to bomb it and so the air defense there was weak.  The
                 article might also have mentioned the need of clean damage
                 assessment but I don't remember.
        \_ It was an industrial base.
        \_ Perhaps a word of mouth but someone told me it's because the weather
           over Tokyo wasn't allowing for the pilots to do visual so at the
           last minute, it was decided that H & N are to be target. I'm not
           sure what the radar technology was like in 1945 but this is just
           what I heard.
           \_ H&N were 'set aside' while Tokyo was getting bombed to shit by
              conventional explosives (70+k dead).  Damage assessment on
              undamaged target cities.
              \_ this is the only correct anwser.
                 \_ Wrong, damage assement was only one of the criteria.
                    Weather and visual bombing conditions were also very
                    important as was the strategic military value of the
                    targets.