at sea and bodies of troops are, in general, unlikely to be regarded as primary atomic bomb targets,” the report concluded. “The bomb is pre-eminently a weapon for use against human life and activities in large urban and industrial areas.” It was a weapon useful, most of all, for killing and terrorizing civilians. The report suggested that a nuclear attack would stir up “man’s primordial fears” and “break the will of nations.” The military significance of the atomic bomb was clear: it wouldn’t be aimed at the military. Nuclear weapons would be used to destroy an enemy’s morale, and some of
...more
This is really not that different from the tactics of the PLO, Hamas, al Qaeda and ISiS. Terrify the surviving population, and use that terror to change their behavior.
The terrorists kill far fewer people, but get less compliance with their demands. But, they also don't make their demands very clear to begin with.
Has there ever been a small-to-moderate scale terror campaign that worked? Palestinians are still in ghettos. The English are still in North Ireland. Abortion is still available in most of the US.
Meanwhile, nuclear terror is 1 for 1 (or 1 for 2, depending on whether you count bombing the Japanese as two events, or one series of events).
More effective than conventional bombing of cities too -- London didn't fold under the German assault, and all the firebombing of Dresden accomplished was to wipe away Dresden.