Hiroshima

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Letum

So, aside from financial reasons (reparations & trade),

What is war but a fight for practical advantages? As far as a country is concerned, a war and its sacrifices are worth it only if some result is achieved favorable to the country. Maximizing the advantages of the war is a leader's job.

there would be nothing holding you back from launching the nukes?

Morally, there will be nothing. However, practically, it makes little difference because with the advantage so low (due to the artificiality of the scenario) there are a vast arsenal of reasons to use that are a lot less iffy than "morals" anyway.

Have you, BTW, considered Plan C. Since the Germans obviously are agreeing to surrender in principle, perhaps to get the 5PM surrender, perhaps you can just tell them you will nuke them at 5:10PM, and see if they surrender earlier?

Let's try a somewhat more realistic scenario:
You are a Russian commander in Chechenya. A bunch of Rebel boeyviki are hiding out in that village ahead. There are a bunch of civilians. You will suffer 60% casualities if you try to clear it man by man w/o artillery support or 30% if you use a pre-assault normative barrage, and do it faster and kill more boeyviki as well. The only hitch is that the civilians will likely suffer 80% casualites in the bombardment, while in the straight infantry fight their casualties will be 10%.

Assuming that this is the best knowledge you have, will you order the bombardment.