Edit Sorry I monged the quote function
Except that the Yanks didn’t have little boy ready until after the surrender of Germany
That's not really relevant to the argument of whether Germany was intended to be a target or not -
All that proves is that it wasn't ready in time to use on Germany regardlessIm still not seeing why - There was little difference between Hiroshima - Tokyo - Dresden Hamburg Caen or Coventry to the man on the ground -I still think politics would have entered the issue.
Why would anyone be squeamish about using 1 bomb to kill a city instead of 100 000 - why is there this perceived deference of morality.
The US had no qualms about flattening cities with a 1000 B17s so why find 1 B29 repugnant.
To the contrary I can see the argument that 1 bomb was more humane than hours of terror inflicted by hundreds of bombers - for those on the target - but would terrify all the other cities far more.
In 1941 Nazi officials argued that conditions in the Warsaw ghetto were so bad it would be more humane to simply kill the Jews than have them starve to death.
Not relevant to the discussion - but I use it as a real example of how a perverse moral logic could justify a nuke on Germany
Okay with hindsight we now see a difference because of fall out and associated 3 eyed fish etc - but that wasn't known so doesn't factor into the decision making
Somewhat at odds with the persistant claim that Japan was finished and wanted to surrender and they only dropped it to scare Russia.Plus they didn’t want the Russians to know.
However ignoring the conspiracy wibble - How much longer was the secret kept dropping on Japan versus Kiel or Paris - Soviet agents would have been crawling over anywhere quick enough