>>213531428
>the emperor being unfazed as well is historically contested
It may be true but I mentioned the japanese leadership specifically because the emperor himself did not intervene at first. It was seen as improper, beneath him to deal with politics and military affairs. And though he might have been affected by the death of his subjects, he did not lift a finger when Tokyo was firebombed, nor when japanese people died en masse from starvation and disease as a result of the war. Knowing this and the fact, again, that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not any more or less deadly or brutal than other attacks, it is doubtful this alone would have been sufficient to sway his opinion.
>Also the demoralization aspect of the civilian population matters as well, since a highly propagandized society will get its bubble punctured when hit as hard in the firebombings and the atom bomb
Our experience of strategic bombing indicates without ambiguity that it has minimal effect on the population's opinion towards its leaders. It's more likely to strengthen their resolve.
The allies did strategic bombing not to affect the population's opinion but to disrupt military production and logistics via dehousing. Hiroshima was a notable exception, but only because the first intended target was unavailable and the sensitive nature of the bomb meant the US was unwilling to postpone or cancel the attack halfway through.