I understand that I am by no means an expert. I am serious curious about this:
In my own research and studies, I have been unable to find good reason for the US to choose these two cities. A major symbol of Japan is Mt. Fuji. I have thought that if the US had made a more symbolic nuking of Mt. Fuji, it would break Japan's pride and scare them. It seems out of character for the US to pick two cities filled with civilians.
Am I wrong?
It seems out of character for the US to pick two cities filled with civilians
Remember, the US had undertaken a long series of firebombing raids on Japanese cities long before the nuclear bombings in question. In particular, the Meetinghouse raid on Tokyo claimed more lives than either nuclear bombing--or any other bombing for that matter. The practice of attacking Japanese cities was established long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and US bombing of cities in general began in 1943.
The rationale for bombing Hiroshima at least was that it was:
a) Untouched by bombing so they could measure the effectiveness of the weapon.
b) Had some military value. It had a port, barracks and other military buildings.
c)It wasn't Kyoto, the cultural capital.
Bombing Fuji wouldn't gain anything militarily and they would be unable to measure the effectiveness of the nuke on a city. Destroying Japan's symbols of identity is exactly what they wanted to avoid so that they would surrender instead of fight to the bitter end.
Source: a tour of the Hiroshima museum.