Comment by laverya

1. Presumably, your "we have a superweapon" talk would say that it can be carried on a single plane. That is literally the main/only advantage of first-gen nukes.

Also, the maneuvers that a B-29 needed to do to escape the blast of one of those weapons was really extreme - and Japanese engineers would likely be able to figure this out too. Those maneuvers mean that you can't fly in close formation. (Or really any sort of formation with separations not measured in miles)

2. "But we should have tried more!" is always something that can be said. I'm really not sure this changes the overall moral calculus.

3. You're linking to something saying "other US bombing raids were worse than the nukes" and using it to argue that the nukes weren't necessary. I can't really understand this either. (I'm not sure that Japan could have actually retooled to move more productive capacity out of the cities than they were already doing. But when you're trying for a psychological outcome - surrender - "we knew this was coming and planned for it" is a lot easier to handle than "what the hell just happened")

Finally, yes - Japan was confined to a series of islands with little besides coal and people. They were never going to win, not so long as the US had the will to continue the fight. But surrendering 6 months later would mean huge casualties for the invaders, massive losses for the defenders, and unimaginable horrors for the civilian population. We should all be happy for the millions of people that didn't starve to death, and for the millions who didn't have to walk their children off of cliffs or have the family hug a grenade.