Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however bad this might seem, seems so insginificant to drop a bomb on when Tokyo, being the capitol, would have had a greater impact?
I am, and will always remain fully condemnful towards the bombing of Naga and Hiro. But why didnt they go "all in" per se, when they had a chance?
4 months before August 1945, Tokyo had already been reduced to a smoldering ruin for all intents and purposes.
Operation MEETINGHOUSE, on March 9, 1945 involved over 300 B-29's using primarily incendiary bombs on the city, where the majority of buildings were very flammable. The result was almost 1/3 of the city was gone entirely, and most estimates place the death toll at between 100k and 150k with some up to 200k dead. That would mean based on various estimates the one raid killed more than both the Atomic bombings combined. That was the largest raid, but far from the only, from about November 1944 onwards to the end of the war, large B-29 raids regularly visited the city. Thus when the targeting committee began looking at targets to use the bombs on they ruled Tokyo out fairly early as the destructive power of it would be less obvious when used on a city so thoroughly bombed already.
The initial proposal for selection in May required targets that:
The initial targets selected and given grades were:
After this initial list was created, it was regularly adjusted. Kyoto was famously removed to preserve its cultural treasures. And other cities like Nagasaki were added. This was a result of additional criteria being added, including emphasizing cities that would be a shorter run for the bombers, making cities along the Southwest coast more attractive.