No I do think they make 'our troops' safer and its more affordable. Im just saying yea mistakes have been made

@jmo: Thanks for your response.
"What I stated was that it is agreed that without the bombs Japan would not have surrendered."
This is what I was arguing though. That the two bombs weren't necessary (for surrender). Do you agree the second bomb being launched so quickly after the first was a little sketchy, and that one bomb would have been enough? I know you didn't give your opinion on if it was right, but you are saying that it was necessary for the surrender short of a mainland invasion.
In my research of the war, many notable people of the time believed Japan was already defeated and looking to surrender.

"before the bombs use the US threatened them with complete destruction if they refused to surrender unconditionally. That threat was ignored."
And the key word here is unconditional surrender. This was what prolonged the first world war too with America's refusal to accept anything less. An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. After Germany did it in the last war and the Treaty of Versailles happened, I don't blame the Japanese leaders to not accepting that.

The numbers estimated for a land invasion are missing the point though because a mainland invasion wasn't necessary. They had no control of the seas or air. Almost every city in Japan was bombed and enflamed, more people were dying in the bombing of Tokyo than the two bombs combined.
I've never heard of the threat by Japan that they'll execute 100 thousand POW if they were blockaded/invaded which makes things a little more tricky I admit. I'm confused why they would only threaten to kill them over a blockade/invasion and not the bombings that were constantly happening. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Okay, I think I'm understanding you now Flum, in everything I've found in studying the mentalities of both sides during that time I find it unlikely that the Japanese people would have surrendered at the time of the war without some type of shock factor involved. The carpet bombs didn't seem to spur that effect and the suicides of even women rather then being taken captive was rather shocking. But you are right, trying to enforce a barricade of the island without engaging in other military engagements might just have ended the war without the use of nukes. The question still remains though, what would a non nuclear ending have done to the state of the world? Specifically with what a fragile state the world was in at the time, a drawn out blockade could have been a disaster and left the war lingering. The other unknown is, had the nuke not been used, would war with the USSR have ensued without the deterrent of nuclear war being in place? Questions I can't answer, but they put question to the claim that hindsight is 20/10

As for the use of 2 close together, your point is well taken. The shock factor of the weapon itself did not need more then 1 demonstration, especially with the location of the first target. So yes, it does seem likely that 1 would have been enough.

The threat on the POW's was part of the mindset of some of Japan's military leaders who ordered kamikaze attacks. After the nuclear attacks the Emperor, in a nearly unprecedented act, got involved and spoke out saying:
"I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer."

it was shortly after that statement that Japan surrendered. Some historians still believe that had he not gotten involved the Japan military leaders who were ordering kamikaze attacks wouldn't have surrendered.

It's just murky. It's so hard to say one way or the other whether the use of the bombs is what caused the surrender, and even if it was, was it worth it.

Playing catch up but:

@"
It was long. And im tired. But for sure the Nagasaki Bomb was uneccessary. Just poor communication and unfortunate"

No, it was necessary to demonstrate to the world that 1) we have this weapon and 2) we are willing to use it.

And it arguable prevented the cold war from heating up. But it also caused nuclear proliferation across the globe.

I agree, i was not necessary for the military defeat of Japan, and i was less aware of the fire-bombing of Tokyo but that is a deplorable war crime aswell.

@brainbomb, sorry, you appear to have said most of what i just replied... So it seems we are in agreement.

@sorrenn "Do you forget that Dec 7 1941 was an unprovoked attack. "

Nope, it was not.

"This boxed Japan into a situation where it either had to acquiesce to external limits on its foreign policy in East "

And if you listen to Gore Vidal, he explains how the US president was intentionally provoking the Japanese. The US public didn't want to get into another european war. It was incredibly unpopular at home (after WW1). So the President had to force someone to attack them.

@"But on the same note, nobody can know they were wrong for sure either."

They were a war crime by the standards set down by the allies at Nuremburg. No question about it. (As was the fire-bombing of Dresden and according to this thread Tokyo)

@JMO, re:the end of the war.

I'm sure a negotiated peace and swapping of prisoners could hve happened witout surrender. It wouldn't have made Japan into the place we see today, which is pro-American market economy and spent most of the remainder of last century as the second largest economy in the world... So in some sense, a very capitalist sense, it was a success. And i appreciate that a second war didn't happen between the US and Japan. That is a good thing.

But you can't pretend that US killing are all better than anyone else's killings, just because you've cone up with a justification for them.

Take the wars and government overthrown in the americas (south and central, aswell as the Caribbean) The US kicked the last of the Spainnish out and then decided it was king of the hill. The whole region must kow-tow to US influnce or risk CIA intervention and civil war. Uncouted dead litter the region, because anyone who decides they can oppose the US has to be made an example of. Cuba remains under embargo despite the cold war justification being long gone - they were a threat in the region to US hegemony but that is just the most famous example.

Well not only that, but at a Democratic fundraiser, while I was sipping on some (spiked!!!) kool aide, I was cornered by none other than Hillary and Obama and, whilst my memory is a little fuzzy (see reference to said kool aide) that pair of them, I think, took turns fondling my naughty bits.

I'm so ashamed....somehow I think I brought this on myself...

"I'm sure a negotiated peace and swapping of prisoners could hve happened witout surrender."

Based on what? Flum and I have been trading historically held views. If you want to join the discussion please bring fact based beliefs.

Most wars have historically ended up prisoner swaps. So any peace agreed - no necessarily a Japanese surrender. If it could be negotiated. Would probably have invlded a prisoner exchange.

If the arguments you're presenting above are right, and the Japanese would have accepted a conditional surrender, then i'm sure a peace deal without surrender could have been reached. Probably something with US control of most of the Pacific anyway.

Japanese surrender doesn't correspond with their culture.

In fact, many soldiers didn't even believe the 1945 surrender tombs valid.

To be valid**

So a negotiated peace with out surrender?