-—Here’s a better question: Which was worse, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima or the firebombing of Tokyo, and why?-—
Tokyo was worse, but nobody thinks about that.
Which is one reason that was no moral debate about using the A-bomb. They’d already conventionally bombed Tokyo, and that killed more people than the A-bomb would. Why would Truman hesitate?
Imagine if HST refused to use the A-bomb, and invaded instead and lost half a million men. Imagine if it came out later: “Well, we had this super-weapon that could have ended the war without invading, but we were worried about killing too many Japanese”
Try not to laugh. Truman would have been impeached, convicted, and maybe hanged by a mob if that ever happened.
Yes, Tokyo was a lot worse.
There were military targets in Hiroshima, and getting them with one plane instead of 300 made a lot of sense. The subsequent effects of the weapon were not anticipated or understood.
Killing women and children BECAUSE the were women and children, to influence policymakers beyond the reach of the firestorm, was and remains problematic.