And it was followed by another bomb.

Hiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki.

Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.

> Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.

Given the immediate response to Hiroshima was disbelief, surely an at-sea demonstration would have been even less convincing than the observable absence of a city?

Even once the Japanese government confirmed that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear weapon, part of the reason Nagasaki followed Hiroshima was that the Japanese forces estimated the US couldn't have built more than one or two more (they were correct, they just hadn't internalised what losing an entire city meant).

Even after Nagasaki, there were some who attempted a coup to prevent surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

> Hiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki

After which Japan surrendered.

This logic is like arguing 99% of a drug doesn’t do anything because the bug is only eradicated by the last effective molecule.

> they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities

This was considered. The bombs’ unreliability (and cost) made it a non-starter.