I'm surprised at the results here.

My perception of the crowd here is that it is largely anti-American in bias so I assumed most people would have voted No just to reflect that.

Live and learn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-apologies-necessary/2015/08/17/a0899906-450a-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

This is why having prejudged & having preconceived notions is faulty

PS: I voted no & again to go against preconceived notions am not Anti American

But I would vote the same no against nuking any civilian population to gain anything

It is/was the pinnacle of cowardice

It would have been called the same if instead of stopping with striking a military target ( Pearl Harbor)

The Japanese war planes had proceeded to obliterate Hawaii/Hawaii's population...would we later accept their excuse claiming

it would end the fight sooner as the US would have no Hawaii mid-Pacific fueling stations available to strike Japan?

No answer required as it is not a question but my opinion

While I appreciate your post reflects only your opinion, it would also seem to be based on what you assume is a fact. The fact being your thought that Hiroshima was not a viable military target.

Lifted from a good source on the bombings:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml

Yes thank you that was my opinion.

It is not based on what is "assumed" fact it is based on actual facts & civilian body counts.

Hiroshima held Military Targets yes.....Same as Nagasaki

Same as Hawaii? Should Hawaii have been vaporized then?

It is clear what I was saying was military bombing military installations are part & parcel of war

Obliterating a whole civilian population to achieve that end is not.

It is good such an act has only ever been committed once .....

...Again In My Opinion...

I'm surprised at the results here.

My perception of the crowd here is that it is largely anti-American in bias so I assumed most people would have voted No just to reflect that.

Live and learn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-apologies-necessary/2015/08/17/a0899906-450a-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

This is why having prejudged & having preconceived notions is faulty

PS: I voted no & again to go against preconceived notions am not Anti American

But I would vote the same no against nuking any civilian population to gain anything

It is/was the pinnacle of cowardice

It would have been called the same if instead of stopping with striking a military target ( Pearl Harbor)

The Japanese war planes had proceeded to obliterate Hawaii/Hawaii's population...would we later accept their excuse claiming

it would end the fight sooner as the US would have no Hawaii mid-Pacific fueling stations available to strike Japan?

No answer required as it is not a question but my opinion

You mean like they did in Nanking?

Or MyLai?

What is the point of comparing lowest denominators?

Does not make one wrong less because others have also done wrong

Where does it end? Shall we compare civilian body counts of all the lowest denominators & see who....wins???

I didn't vote. Can't make up my mind about something that happened before my time But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

Which side would be on when you voted no? The aggressors who were trying to take over the world (don't have a bomb)? Or. The part of the world being taken over (has the bomb)? If you vote no you will killed and your wife and family given to terrorists as slaves.

I said no to possessing a bomb so your writings are irrelevant. No side has a bomb. There are no bombs. Get it?

Aggression can be and are fought without nuclear bombs. It's been done for the last 70 years.

Or MyLai?

What is the point of comparing lowest denominators?

Does not make one wrong less because others have also done wrong

Where does it end? Shall we compare civilian body counts of all the lowest denominators & see who....wins???

My Lai was the result of the wrongful conduct by the responsible individuals. It was not a state sanctioned event, nor was it an event that was supported by the US population. The event was condemned by the US people and was a focus of outrage and castigation by the US public and its political representatives. Responsibility was accepted and a sincere apology was made. The rape of Nanking was a state sanctioned event. None of the responsible parties ever expressed remorse or apologized. The event was supported by the Japanese population There is a very big difference between the two events.

And now as someone who's family suffered under the Chinese occupation, the US liberation didn't come fast enough for some, particularly the thousands of Chinese who were starved or beaten to death, or the POWs who were worked to death in the last months of the war. The Japanese were not nice people and saw everyone else as inferior.It's why they had no hesitation dissecting the Chinese people alive. The Japanese intentionally poisoned tens of thousands of Chinese in brutal cruel experiments. You can cry all you want over the collateral damage, but the fact is that every Japanese national, whether it was the elderly, or children was an enemy combatant. There were no civilians. Japan was a nation where everyone was part of the war effort. Today, the Japanese will not even accept responsibility and apologize for what they did. That tells me that the US should have dropped a few more atomic bombs on the cruel and selfish murderers. BTW, the US keeps getting blamed for the bombing, but it was a worldwide effort. The scientists who worked on the bomb were from all over the world. The western allies were certainly onside with the USA when the bombs were dropped.

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

Operation_Downfall.pdf

I'm surprised at the results here.

My perception of the crowd here is that it is largely anti-American in bias so I assumed most people would have voted No just to reflect that.

Live and learn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-apologies-necessary/2015/08/17/a0899906-450a-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

This is why having prejudged & having preconceived notions is faulty

PS: I voted no & again to go against preconceived notions am not Anti American

But I would vote the same no against nuking any civilian population to gain anything

It is/was the pinnacle of cowardice

It would have been called the same if instead of stopping with striking a military target ( Pearl Harbor)

The Japanese war planes had proceeded to obliterate Hawaii/Hawaii's population...would we later accept their excuse claiming

it would end the fight sooner as the US would have no Hawaii mid-Pacific fueling stations available to strike Japan?

No answer required as it is not a question but my opinion

While I appreciate your post reflects only your opinion, it would also seem to be based on what you assume is a fact. The fact being your thought that Hiroshima was not a viable military target.

Lifted from a good source on the bombings:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml

Yes thank you that was my opinion.

It is not based on what is "assumed" fact it is based on actual facts & civilian body counts.

Hiroshima held Military Targets yes.....Same as Nagasaki

Same as Hawaii? Should Hawaii have been vaporized then?

It is clear what I was saying was military bombing military installations are part & parcel of war

..Obliterating a whole civilian population to achieve that end is not.

It is good such an act has only ever been committed once .....

...Again In My Opinion.

"Same as Hawaii? Should Hawaii have been vaporized then?"

It very likely would have been had Japan obtained the bomb first. The Japanese people, as has been shown by history, were not averse to killing every man, woman and child that stood in their way. I'm certain you are not so naive as to believe otherwise.

"It is good such an act has only ever been committed once ....."

This is one of your opinions I will agree with.

Let me ask for another opinion on the subject. How would you feel if the US Air Force had mobilized all its might in the Pacific theater of operations and systematically bombed Japan from coast to coast with conventional weapons in preparation for an invasion? They had already reduced 9 square miles of Tokyo to rubble and killed an estimated 200,000 civilians so the potential was certainly there. Around 1,000 B-29s and B-17s had been used and the Eighth Air Force was still largely in Europe.

Somebody early on suggested the US Navy patrol the shores of Japan bombarding them with the battleships. This suggestion is patently absurd. The maximum range of the ordinance on the battleships was 38 kilometers. All Japan had to do was move their population and war making capabilities 50 kilometers from the coast and live fat, dumb and happy as their coastline, which then would have contained nothing, was being turned into terrain that would support nothing. Tomahawk Cruise missiles were still on the drawing board in 1945.

Two nukes killing an estimated 250,000 or an all-out invasion killing, perhaps, millions.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Another little aside on this subject is...for anybody that has TrueVisions coverage in Thailand, The History Channel is planning to air a special on the Japanese occupation of China during their war. History Channel out of Hong Kong is carrying the special.

It is scheduled for Saturday and Sunday nights (22-23 August) beginning at, I believe, 20.00 hours Thai time. Not certain about the time so check your local scheduling.

Perhaps the show will change an opinion or two before it is over.

Did it lead to the Japanese surrender?

I didn't vote. Can't make up my mind about something that happened before my time But if it came to a vote on using one again or even possessing one then it's a great big

NO

Which side would be on when you voted no? The aggressors who were trying to take over the world (don't have a bomb)? Or. The part of the world being taken over (has the bomb)? If you vote no you will killed and your wife and family given to terrorists as slaves.

I said no to possessing a bomb so your writings are irrelevant. No side has a bomb. There are no bombs. Get it?

Aggression can be and are fought without nuclear bombs. It's been done for the last 70 years.

I simply dont get the point you are making. Do you think the population of Warsaw for instance or Stalingrad or Dresden or even the hundreds of thousands killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs were better of than those wiped out by the A bombs. It seems you are arguing that it was more moral for Hitler to wipe out people slowly but not save many thousands of Japanese civilian lives, let alone all the soldiers of many countries, which was achived by dropping the A bombs. Its just a knee jerk response.

I'm surprised at the results here.
My perception of the crowd here is that it is largely anti-American in bias so I assumed most people would have voted No just to reflect that.
Live and learn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-apologies-necessary/2015/08/17/a0899906-450a-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

This is why having prejudged & having preconceived notions is faulty

PS: I voted no & again to go against preconceived notions am not Anti American
But I would vote the same no against nuking any civilian population to gain anything
It is/was the pinnacle of cowardice

It would have been called the same if instead of stopping with striking a military target ( Pearl Harbor)
The Japanese war planes had proceeded to obliterate Hawaii/Hawaii's population...would we later accept their excuse claiming
it would end the fight sooner as the US would have no Hawaii mid-Pacific fueling stations available to strike Japan?

No answer required as it is not a question but my opinion

While I appreciate your post reflects only your opinion, it would also seem to be based on what you assume is a fact. The fact being your thought that Hiroshima was not a viable military target.

Lifted from a good source on the bombings:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml

Yes thank you that was my opinion.

It is not based on what is "assumed" fact it is based on actual facts & civilian body counts.

Hiroshima held Military Targets yes.....Same as Nagasaki

Same as Hawaii? Should Hawaii have been vaporized then?

It is clear what I was saying was military bombing military installations are part & parcel of war
..Obliterating a whole civilian population to achieve that end is not.
It is good such an act has only ever been committed once .....
...Again In My Opinion.

"Same as Hawaii? Should Hawaii have been vaporized then?"

It very likely would have been had Japan obtained the bomb first. The Japanese people, as has been shown by history, were not averse to killing every man, woman and child that stood in their way. I'm certain you are not so naive as to believe otherwise.

"It is good such an act has only ever been committed once ....."

This is one of your opinions I will agree with.

Let me ask for another opinion on the subject. How would you feel if the US Air Force had mobilized all its might in the Pacific theater of operations and systematically bombed Japan from coast to coast with conventional weapons in preparation for an invasion? They had already reduced 9 square miles of Tokyo to rubble and killed an estimated 200,000 civilians so the potential was certainly there. Around 1,000 B-29s and B-17s had been used and the Eighth Air Force was still largely in Europe.

Somebody early on suggested the US Navy patrol the shores of Japan bombarding them with the battleships. This suggestion is patently absurd. The maximum range of the ordinance on the battleships was 38 kilometers. All Japan had to do was move their population and war making capabilities 50 kilometers from the coast and live fat, dumb and happy as their coastline, which then would have contained nothing, was being turned into terrain that would support nothing. Tomahawk Cruise missiles were still on the drawing board in 1945.

Two nukes killing an estimated 250,000 or an all-out invasion killing, perhaps, millions.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Another little aside on this subject is...for anybody that has TrueVisions coverage in Thailand, The History Channel is planning to air a special on the Japanese occupation of China during their war. History Channel out of Hong Kong is carrying the special.

It is scheduled for Saturday and Sunday nights (22-23 August) beginning at, I believe, 20.00 hours Thai time. Not certain about the time so check your local scheduling.

Perhaps the show will change an opinion or two before it is over.

Yes good post, but it should also be remembered that although Tomahawks were still on the drawing board V1s and V2s were very much not. In 1944 Hitler was still trying to wipe out London and would have loved to have had an A bomb, as would the Japanese and they would not have hesitated for one second to use it. As one who was blown out of bed on the day they were born by a V1 that hit the hospital I was born in (lucky not V2) and grew up seeing the large parts of London desolated by bombs, and still well into the 50s, hearing the air raid sirens being tested, seeing all the crashed German bombers still littering the fields, I know, not feel, not 1/2 assed ill informed knee jerk opinion, I know that dropping the A bombs and ending the war was the right decision.

Did it lead to the Japanese surrender?

Sure. One thing out of a hundred different things. Were the 99 other reasons enough for force surrender? Don't know.

Monday drop bomb #1. Thursday drop bomb #2. Friday Emperor of Japan said, "I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied (surrender) proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister." I guess it could just have been a coincidence that the surrender came when it did.

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

Thank you for that file. I have read it and was grateful that none of my UK family that I know of were involved in the Pacific war.

Without a doubt, what mind numbing comments: 1) It was done to "save American lives". Of course, and the lives of many other nationalities also lest the Japanese continued to slaughter as they waged war throughout Asia and the Pacific. How long before they invaded Australia? New Zealand? India?

How far did they have to go before being stopped? The Japanese had already printed currency for use in the U.S. That is how certain they were of reaching their goal. 2) They were "ready to surrender". That's a good one! If so, why didn't they??. They could have done so with a phone call!! 3) It was done to "intimidate the Russians". Right! What evidence is there of that? Recall that the U.S. and Russians were allies at the time. There was little time to play silly buggers. The fat was in the fire and had to be put out. One must ask how many "no" votes might one expect from China, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, New Guinea, various Pacific islands such as Guam and the Solomon Islands. I could go on, but you get the picture. .

So if we are to say that we learn from our mistakes we have to remember they never used these bombs again. .... So far.

We have grown up looking at the pictures of what happened but the guys who made these decisions did not have that knowledge.

Truman noted in his diary that:

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one.^[78]

So it happened and we can only hope that it is never used again.

It was definitely justified, if only to punish a race that committed such horrendous crimes against neighbouring countries. However, it wasn't necessary.

^^^ Outta likes Geriatrickid. Well stated IMO.

My late father was a fighter pilot during WWII out here

in the Pacific Theatre and every now & then he'd tell

me a small bit about his war experiences. The IJA soldier

was a well trained & battle hardened soldier...same applied

to the IJAF pilots. mind you he never really talked much

about his wartime experiences and 40 years after participating

in my own war out here, I understand why he didn't say much.

His reasoning was fairly simple...it is too horrific for you to

comprehend...end of story. And it doesn't need to be a

World War to be horrific...a nasty low intensity conflict will

do.

There was a plan for the invasion of Japan named Operation

Downfall which comprised two main components; Operation

Coronet & Operation Olympic. Had Operation Downfall been

set in motion the war in the Pacific may well have lasted at

least 4 more years (rough estimate) or longer, and the casualty

figures for just the US would be in the range of between 500,000

to a million fatalities...and this is also just a rudimentary estimate.

Why? Because the US military would not only be fighting the

Imperial Japanese Military on their own soil...the US military

would also have to fight every Japanese person who could

heft any type of weapon. And this included every man, woman,

child & possibly dog.

There were plans to use nuclear weapons during the two phases

of Operation Downfall with about 7 devices that would be ready

when needed. However...there were arguments regarding their

usage due to what little was kown about fallout at that time.

Yes...the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrific events

but during war horrific events happen with horrific regularity.

Many lives were saved on both sides;Japanese & American, by

dropping those two nuclear devices compared to how many would

have perished had Operation Downfall commenced.

Enclosed is a PDF file...for those who may be interested...

read it.

We are constantly told that many American lives would be lost attacking Japan, but it was never necessary to invade. With total air supremacy, there was no need to put a single American GI on Japanese soil to gain surrender. However, the American high command have never been slow to sacrifice their troops in poorly executed warfare. Just look at Vietnam where thousands of lives were lost due to incompetent leadership. The Australians and New Zealanders lost very few in comparison because their tactics were far superior, despite pressure from the Americans to implement bad tactics in search of a faster resolution. Luckily for the ANZ troops, their leaders refused to be intimidated.

70 years after the event. As they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing; and hindsight might still favour the A-bomb's use in 1945. But whether it does or not, few people alive today are in a position to say what they would have done (given the opportunity) then; and none alive today suffered under Japanese brutality.

There are many 90 year old war veterans around that suffered under Japanese brutality.

It is fantastic to see how Government Propaganda has reached its goal ...

People think it is ok to kill other people [nothing else happened with the bombs] as long as it serves its purpose.

That's why it is happening now and that's why it will happen in the future.

ALL Governments are cirminals and the people who "serve" in the wars are foolish sheep who think

it's for "the greater good" ... until they die and are called heroes.

This is madness and insane !!!

There is NO justification for any mass killing [or even single killing] of a human being ... and everybody who remembers that he/she him/herself

is still a human being should never ever vote YES in a poll where thousands of people got murdered !!!

It is obvious you were not alive at the time and do not understand the cause and effect let alone the feeling of the public in the UK. Had Germany not invaded Poland after securing Russian neutrality then the UK would not have declared war on Germany. Hitler thought the threats made by the UK were just hot air. He also wanted to avoid a conflict with the UK as he believed once Europe had been conquered he could come to an amicable agreement with the British government. The German plan was to make Europe part of the German empire with the assistance of Italy. The result was the escalation of the war which also drew in Japan. Their bombing of Pearl Harbor, which Hoover had been informed about and ignored, resulted in the US entering WW2. From there on you had two major conflicts in play on either side of the world. Stopping it was another thing altogether and with the Japanese die before surrender attitude the A bomb was the only way of terminating the war in the far east. Even after the first bomb had been dropped the Emperor still refused to surrender, causing the loss of many thousands more lives from the second A bomb.

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

No as the Japanese had been trying to surrender and it was only used to prove a point. Disgusting.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

They would surrender,but not unconditionally.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

I don't know enough about the historic details and had accepted that they would not surrender, you say the sticking point was the status of the emperor but doesn't that still mean they would not surrender? You said they were desperately trying but come on, how much do you have to try to surrender? Also if they were so ready why did it take 2 bombs before they did?

a lot of information concerning this on the internet and elsewhere

This makes interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The emperor aside from being a governing entity, the emperor had religious significance to the Japanese people,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/emperor_1.shtml

The Americans insisted on the removal of the emperor an his trial as a war criminal as a condition for surrender know that this condition would be unacceptable to the Japanese , The British were of the opinion that the Emperor is retained. There are those who say that the insistence of the Americans to remove the Emperor was a delaying tactic to give them time to drop the bombs and as a warning to the Russians

After the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered and the Japanese were allowed to keep the Emperor

You draw your own conclusions.

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

Of course it wasn't single handed. And in fact, the USA was late to the party -- but the final push from Guadalcanal, Tararwa, Peleliu and Okinowa was largely a US operation. BTW, the Chinese will never admit Mao's avoidance of the Japanese while the Generalissimo lost nearly 100,00 troops. The victors really don't always write history.

No as the Japanese had been trying to surrender and it was only used to prove a point. Disgusting.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

They would surrender,but not unconditionally.

Little Boy and Fat Man certainly fixed that.

Off-topic post removed.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

I don't know enough about the historic details and had accepted that they would not surrender, you say the sticking point was the status of the emperor but doesn't that still mean they would not surrender? You said they were desperately trying but come on, how much do you have to try to surrender? Also if they were so ready why did it take 2 bombs before they did?

a lot of information concerning this on the internet and elsewhere

This makes interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The emperor aside from being a governing entity, the emperor had religious significance to the Japanese people,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/emperor_1.shtml

The Americans insisted on the removal of the emperor an his trial as a war criminal as a condition for surrender know that this condition would be unacceptable to the Japanese , The British were of the opinion that the Emperor is retained. There are those who say that the insistence of the Americans to remove the Emperor was a delaying tactic to give them time to drop the bombs and as a warning to the Russians

After the bombs were dropped the Japanese surrendered and the Japanese were allowed to keep the Emperor

You draw your own conclusions.

The first serious meetings of the Emperor of Japan and his cabinet about surrender took place on August 10th. Two bomb had already been dropped. The discussions by the Americans about the fate of the Emperor took place after August 10th and after both bombs had been dropped. Sorry it was not a delaying tactic as the bombs had already been dropped.

The History of Nuclear War I: How Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by ... By John Richard Shanebrook Page 154

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

Of course it wasn't single handed. And in fact, the USA was late to the party -- but the final push from Guadalcanal, Tararwa, Peleliu and Okinowa was largely a US operation. BTW, the Chinese will never admit Mao's avoidance of the Japanese while the Generalissimo lost nearly 100,00 troops. The victors really don't always write history.

The USA was not late to the Pacific war party. It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941, on which date Japan invaded Thailand and attacked the British possessions of Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong as well as the United States military bases in Hawaii and the Philippines. The USA declared war on the same day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

Exterminate them, replace them, and be done with it.

How about: 'Exterminate them, don't replace them, but instead set it up as a natural refuge for indigenous animals and plants - which were there a lot longer before people.'

How can we second guess decisions made back then really?

We can assess facts but not states of mind.

Seems to me most people just want to use this thread isnt much more than people exercising their 2015 bias'

My father was in the Pacific war. Childhood friend of his was among the first American troops in Hiroshima after the bomb.

He said one woman came up to him, thanking the U.S. for ending the war. She said the emperor was killing all their men and boys and that it had to end. They had run out of men to send to war.

War is a terrible thing no matter what weapon one is using. People seem to forget that the Japanese were fierce fighters who tended not to surrender but instead fight to the death taking as many of their foes as possible with them. America lost well over 100,000 military in the Pacific and about a quarter of a million were injured. While the US (almost single highhandedly) had them on the ropes, there was no offer of surrender. There was not even an offer of surrender after the first bomb was dropped. To those who think Americans were monsters in using the atomic bomb I ask this. How many more American lives should have been sacrificed to end the war? In the end, the emperor was allowed to stay on the throne instead of being hanged as a war criminal so I don't think that argument has much merit.

Well part of your post is correct, but the "almost single handedly" bit is not and is an insult to the thousands of British and British commonwealth troops and others who suffered and died defeating Japan. Maybe you should check out Kohima for a start. Plus check out how many Chinese nationalist troops died whilst the communists under Mao were skulking around avoiding fighting the Japanese. Try to be a little bit more objective, please.

Of course it wasn't single handed. And in fact, the USA was late to the party -- but the final push from Guadalcanal, Tararwa, Peleliu and Okinowa was largely a US operation. BTW, the Chinese will never admit Mao's avoidance of the Japanese while the Generalissimo lost nearly 100,00 troops. The victors really don't always write history.

The USA was not late to the Pacific war party. It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941, on which date Japan invaded Thailand and attacked the British possessions of Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong as well as the United States military bases in Hawaii and the Philippines. The USA declared war on the same day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

Unless your Chinese of course. They may not own the whole Pacific as they currently claim. But the bit they do own was fighting the Japanese well before Wikipedia was invented.