@layman,
layman wrote:It would be primarily an attack against civilians.
No. An attempt to destroy a military target isn't targeting civilians.
Targeting civilians means directing the weapon at the civilians instead of trying to destroy a military target.
layman wrote:If we simply wanted to attack a specific military target, we had plenty of conventional bombers to do that.
Just because we could destroy a military target by napalming an entire city doesn't mean that A-bombing that same target wasn't also an attempt to destroy it.
Besides, we couldn't destroy the targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki using conventional weapons. Had we tried killing all those soldiers by napalming Hiroshima, they would have taken cover or fled when a large fleet of our bombers approached, and we would not have killed nearly as many soldiers.
Nagasaki was difficult to find using radar guidance, so was immune to the massive nighttime napalm raids. It is also questionable how much damage a nighttime napalm raid could do to the shipyards.
But even if it had been possible to achieve the same military damage using conventional weapons, that wouldn't mean that the A-bombs were not also intended to cause military damage.
layman wrote:As Truman himself later said, atomic bombs are not used to attack purely military targets. They are designed to, and intended to, wipe out vast quantities of civilians.
It isn't how we used them. We used them to kill soldiers and destroy weapons factories.
layman wrote:Some have argued, and they may be correct, that Truman actually thought that "Hiroshima" was the name of a japanese military base, not the name of a city. But the "target committee" certainly knew better.
It was a city quite a bit similar to Norfolk Virginia, in that it was a primary naval base, an important military headquarters, and held lots of military personnel.