[airspirit]

MadDogMe, what you say has a lot of truth to it, in regards to where we dropped the bomb.

In reality, we didn't know the full affect of what these bombs would do. Further, we didn't know whether or not they would force the Japanese to surrender. If we had really wanted to be nasty, we could have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto for over 10 times the casualties, but we didn't.

IMHO, the selection of targets was spot on. You must remember, we only had a small number of these weapons at our disposal. If I recall, the US only had one or two more, and none were guaranteed to work. We didn't have the capability of making any more, because our fissionable material supply was tapped, and it would be months before we had enough to start another weapon (as I said, this is off of a fuzzy recollection of the history of the thing).

The Japanese are a funny people, or at least, were a funny people at the time of this war. Their code of honor was without compare anywhere in the world, so important to them that they would die without hesitation for their nation and people. If you pissed them off, they would come back and do their damnest to lay the smackdown on your ass. If we would have, for instance, nuked the hell out of Mt. Fuji or did an airburst over Tokyo bay to show our capabilities without casualties (or at least with a minimum of them), it may not have broke their will to fight, but may have given them a second wind and a greater will to fight, causing even worse casualties in the event of invasion.

The secondary side affect of an attack like this was that we wouldn't be able to follow through on more nuclear attacks in the case of continued fighting with the Japanese. Since we didn't have the bombs stocked to follow through on our threats, we would have been reduced to slaughtering countless millions of Japanese people at terrible loss of life on the Allied side before the war would have ended.

By picking targets of military significance that were also populated, we did two things: we reduced the Japanese ability to supply its war machine, and we also proved to a society that puts weight on action rather than words that we were going to blast them into oblivion.

Remember, the first bomb didn't cause them to fling their hands in the air and surrender. They were still ready and willing to continue war. It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped proving our resolve and keeping with our promise of nuking a city every few days until they surrendered that caused them to give up. We had to break their will to fight, and what we did, in the end, was exactly what was needed to do it. We used no more, and no less force than was absolutely needed.

If we wanted to kill massive amounts of civilians, we would have struck a major metropolis like Tokyo or Kyoto. Had we done so, it would have been a crime against humanity, since such force would have been greatly excessive. In all rights, we could have bombed some farming village in the sticks somewhere, but while it may have freaked the people out, it would have done nothing to their military strength, and odds are the commanders of their military and their Imperial leadership would have shrugged it off and fought with renewed resolve. We had to hit where it hurt both militaraily and socially in order to force a proud people into submission.

You must remember through all of this, that the Japanese people had almost nothing but contempt for all other nations. In their history, they never knew defeat. They believed themselves invincible and unstoppable, and would have waged war until nearly every last one of them were dead. We had to make a spectacular display, unfortunately one that needed to involve loss of life and military strength, in order to prove that notion of invincibility wrong.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a savage that revels in the loss of human life and the suffering of a society, but what we did was just and necessary. It is unfortunate that in times of war we sometimes must look at the forest through the trees and see what must be done for the maximum benefit of society in general. I think that in doing what we did, the US showed great restraint and compassion. If we wanted to get back at them, we could have bombed the imperial palace in Tokyo. This was not revenge, rather it was a way of ending the aggression swiftly and totally. It is unfortunate that so many lives had to be lost, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made in order to safeguard the lives of the majority. That sounds cold and heartless, I know, but it is better to take decisive action that limits the loss of life to a "reasonable" number, than see countless millions fall to prevent what may oneday be seen as an abortion of justice.

I pray that our current leadership has the wisdom and strength of character to make a decision like this today, but I know that isn't the case. Even today, our government can't act on anything without lining the pockets of our corrupt congress, and special interests prevent us from doing anything when action is absolutely necessary.

Case in point: Lets say that the Executive branch has positive intelligence that proves that Iraq has biological weapons (reality: this is a certainty, and is just a matter of finding where they were hidden, since it was proven they had these weapons before the last inspectors got kicked out). Further, Iraq has been a sponsor of Palestinian and other Arab terrorism in Israel. Who's to say that a terrorist state may feel the desire to kill the Israelis once and for all and drop some sarin or anthrax over Jewish Jerusalem? If the Executive branch had proof that Iraq was going to do just that in three weeks time, do you think that congress would allow them to act? There would be every kind of political maneuvering imaginable preventing action until it was too late, and then the bleeding heart liberals would say, "Oh, the humanity of it! This is why we don't believe in war! Can't we all just get along?" There would be finger pointing as to who was at fault for inaction, when in the end, it would be the peaceniks who prevented military action that may kill Iraqi soldiers on grounds of peace that caused the wholesale murder of thousands or millions of innocent civilians.

What I'm trying to say is that there are no black and white decisions in warfare and international politics. All a nation can do is try to protect its interests and the interests of humanity at large by doing the most good possible with a minimum of injury. In a way, the peaceniks serve their purpose by giving an alternative look at any situation that may lead to war. This is why the US could historically sit by with one of the two largest stockpiles of WMDs without using them except in the Japanese bombing. It is our restraint and good judgement that has compelled us to be the police force for the entire world at the expense of my taxes and other American's lives. While some may question the actions of the US (as I have in certain situations), it is to be almost guaranteed that our system of government that prevents us from going out willy-nilly killing people for no reason.

I'm rambling, now, so I'll just stop. In the end, I think what happened to the Japanese was the most merciful outcome that was possible. We saved millions of lives with those actions, and while we may grieve for the loss, we should never lose sight of the reason why that loss occurred.