Killing innocent civilians with an atomic bomb is never a good thing or a necessary thing.

"Many" disagree with the "many" you agree with. "Many" is not a face or a name and hard to debate with.

America had 2 choices to end the Pacific war. Invade or drop fat man and little boy. They chose to protect American lives and kill Japanese citizens. The end of the war is the result.

How would you have ended WWII?

The fire bombings of Japanese cities killed more people and infustructure than the atomic bombs ever did. And the Japanese kept going even after repeated fire bombings. The Japanese under Bushido code were more than willing to die for their country and Emperor. They weren't afraid of death. They were afraid of Japanese land under occupation. And they also were definetly afraid for the safety and sovereignty of their Emperor. They saw what was done to Germany, and the Russians also started to invade Japanese land; and they only made the logical connection that the main Japanese islands were next if they didn't surrender.

Don't get me wrong, I think the atom bombs had something to do with their demise like any attack. But it wasn't the deciding factor. They were more afraid of the threat of Russian and US invasion, and afraid of the fact that such invasion would ultimately be successful, and the Japanese population would probably drop down to scarey numbers as they would fight to the last man.

You are going to have to give me the figures to back up your statements about the firebombings killing more Japanese than the atomic bombs. In my opinion, the devastation from 2 bombs made them realize if they kept on they were doomed as a nation. I think the atomic bombs stopped the war.

Perhaps.

I think that Japan was already ready to surrender, and that the dropping of the atomic bombs was more about showing the Soviet Union our muscles than anything else.

I agree about wanting to show the Soviet Union what we had. Here is a good site.

http://tinyurl.com/goa5c

I don't want tit for tat.. i don't want anybody to fight at all
Once again you lower the level of conversation to the size of your gonads. Pounding your enemies to dust is the solution most often utlized by apes and lesser animals.

In case you haven't realized i am calling you and all other propogators of violence ( including the muslims nutjobs) two sides of the same coin.

That is how you win a war. You pound your enemy and pound him until he surrenders. The terrorists started this war and it will end when they surrender. How ever long that takes is up to them, but the rest of the world is going to fight them because we do not wish to live under their religion.

We are not 2 sides of the same coin. The civilized world believes in human rights and freedom. The terrorist side believes in submission to them and their religion or they will kill. Not the same coin at all.

Well the US fire bombed 67 cities; destroying large percentages of the cities. Just the firebombing of Tokyo destroyed half of the city. That's 17 square miles. The atomic bomb at Hiroshima destroyed an area of about 1 mile radius, with fires across about 4.4 square miles. Just the fire bombing of Tokyo (that's just 1 out of 67 cities) killed about 100,000 people and injured a further 100,000. Little Boy killed about 70,000–80,000 people from the initial blast. Although killed more people years afterward. The blast at Nagasaki killed 70,000. But what I meant was the initial death tolls, not people that died many years later from after effects, because we're talking about the impact it had on the Japanese government and why they surrendered.

And again, I don't entirely disagree with that. I think the atom bombs really did make them realize that, but according to the evidence, and according to many historians on the Pacific front, like John Toland, the Japanese saw that the damage and the deaths and injured from the firing bombings were just as and even more damaging than Hiroshima; so they weren't all impressed that much by the atom bomb. So I think its really a matter of both...but in the end the prospect of them losing their Emperor and their land to foreign occupiers was much more frightening than dying from the atom bomb (because many welcomed death to sacrafice themselves for their country and Emperor).

So really, what I'm basically arguing against is the idea that the bombs were the deciding factor for the Japanese. Basically, they were going to surrender with atom bombs or without them. But the atom bombs were still a factor, albeit small.