The Decision to Drop: WWII Atomic Bomb

Was it the right decision?

Yes, it was a neccessity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
No, it was immoral.	26.4%	[ 32 ]
It was immoral BUT a neccesity.	31.4%	[ 38 ]
On the fence.	10.7%	[ 13 ]
Total Votes:			[ 121 ]

[Steamcog System]

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

i really don't care about peace, i just think there's too many pink bears.

[Asher Kingsley]

It's not as simple as a lot of people in this thread are making it. "We needed to drop the bomb to save our troops. Period." I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in our country about what was going in Japan leading up to the war, the kind of arguments that were going on inside of the country, etc etc. We oversimplify constantly. How many times have you heard this story: "All the Japanese wanted to go to war, because they were following their great Emperor, and so that's just how it was." Do you think that was actually how it was? .. Really? You honestly believe that? Because I can tell you right now, you're dead friggen wrong. Painting the conflict in such black and white terms is just plain misguided, and that's what people are doing here when it comes to the bomb.

Even if you think you needed to drop a single bomb, and I'm not sure we did, why 2? Contrary to popular belief, many, many Japanese wanted to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and they *definitely* wanted to after the first attack. Why drop another? Don't you suppose there was maybe an ulterior motive? I'm sure if you think about it long enough you can think of a few.

[Asher Kingsley]

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

America sent tokens of good will.. like, what exactly? A blockade of vital natural resources that the country needed to survive, thus leading to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place?

Japan sent tokens of good will to the United States in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Look up the history of the cherry blossom trees in Washington DC for a poignant example.

[FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn]

Xiao Yong De

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

It was a nessecity, if atomic bombs were not used, the Japanese Empire would have won by causing so many American casualties that they sign a peace treaty when the public starts complaining about the deaths, ie Vietnam, Iraq.

Quote:

I have been reading up on relations between China and Korea with Japan. It turns out from many recent happenings in both China and Korea is that they share this hate against Japan. For what reason? Japan has use the Korean's as experiments during WWII. Japan has raped many as well as killed many in China (AKA Nanking.) Japan has also killed many Koreans and Chinese civilians as well as military personnel. Both countries feel that Japan hasn't personally apologized to them. Is this immoral in Japan's fault? YES!

The Japanese did not use Koreans in Scientific Experiments, they used Chinese prisoners. Korea was a Japanese colony for 40 years before WW2, they were treated as second class citizens, not slaves.

Also Japan has indeed apologised numerous times and gave compensation. The Chinese just enjoy bitching since they are communists. And the Koreans have no jusification whatsoever as no atrocities beyond colonial policing were imposed on Koreans.

They both perceive it as unofficial because of the actions the Japanese still do. In most wars there is an apology, and there IS an apology in the lines of war reparations I suppose. A few still visit the Kazuhino Shrine (the current prime minister is standing clear from it though) that is highly controversial. It houses the dead of the war criminals during WWII. The fact that Japan occupied Korea and parts of China is enough of a justification for Korea. I really do not know much about South Korea other than that they share similar resentments with Japan though. The three countries ARE trying to make some peace out of this situation, especially with North Korea and its nuclear tendencies.

Japan also mask's some of it's darker history (especially WWII) and making it sound like Japanese nationalism, I won't debate over this because I am 100% sure that China also has it's own history smothering, but if Japan really wants better relations with China, than Japan needs to fix some stuff.

And yes thanks for correcting me, guess I was incorrect in some fields, but the issue is still out there that South Korea and China are having tensions with Japan.

Dispute over territories near South Korea, Japan, and China. Some islands that South Korea claims as theirs are also claimed by Japan, parts near the Ryukyu Islands are also in some extent claimed by China (Sea routes, etc.)

I am just saying that war is what caused this neutral , I think I should minor in East Asian Studies -.-... I don't like this tension especially when I want to visit and possibly live in those three respective countries for a while.

You mean Yakuzuni Shrine, and it is a shrine dedicated to all warriors in the history of Japan that fought to protect Japan and died for Japan. Whether they were labelled War criminals does not undermine the fact that they died fighting for their nation and what they believed in was best for it.

Korea was not "occupied", it was an annexed territory since 1896. It is to Japan as California is to the United States. It is only because the war was lost and because both the Soviets and Americans wanted to prevent the other from having it was it even made into an independent state, and thus pumped up the propaganda to make them willing to kill each other in the Korean war.

I won't gloss over Japanese Imperialism, but the fact remains that Japanese rule was far superior then being ruled by despotic warlords. Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria all benefitted from the economic gains of the Empire, while local cultures were stamped out, mass education was made available, slavery was abolished. Indeed, Japanese Imperialism is far superior to the atrocities Mao committed, and communism in general.

[FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn]

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

I'l have to disagree with you on this (as well as the bat bombs, strategic bombings are useless).

The Japanese never expected a real victory against America, they simply wanted to win in a decisive battle so to persuade the Americans to sign a peace treaty, giving Japan free rein in China and to stop the blockade of oil on them. Failing that, they were to kill so many Americans through attrition, that they would sign peace terms.

The problem was the American insistance on "unconditional surrender".

[FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn]

Asher Kingsley

It's not as simple as a lot of people in this thread are making it. "We needed to drop the bomb to save our troops. Period." I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in our country about what was going in Japan leading up to the war, the kind of arguments that were going on inside of the country, etc etc. We oversimplify constantly. How many times have you heard this story: "All the Japanese wanted to go to war, because they were following their great Emperor, and so that's just how it was." Do you think that was actually how it was? .. Really? You honestly believe that? Because I can tell you right now, you're dead friggen wrong. Painting the conflict in such black and white terms is just plain misguided, and that's what people are doing here when it comes to the bomb.

Even if you think you needed to drop a single bomb, and I'm not sure we did, why 2? Contrary to popular belief, many, many Japanese wanted to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and they *definitely* wanted to after the first attack. Why drop another? Don't you suppose there was maybe an ulterior motive? I'm sure if you think about it long enough you can think of a few.

Evidence?

The Japanese people wanted to continue the war, it was only because the Emperor himself announced the surrender that the majority accepted it, although many proceded to commit suicide. Also it was a matter of national pride and values, Japan throughout history has never lost a war to a foreign power, and surrender throughout its history was treated as the worst sin imaginable, death was preferrable to any sort of surrender is ingrained in the culture.

No, the Japanese were not peaceful, freedom loving Americans, which is pretty arrogant of you to claim. They were militaristic, patriotic, and believed they were winning.

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Asher Kingsley

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

America sent tokens of good will.. like, what exactly? A blockade of vital natural resources that the country needed to survive, thus leading to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place?

Japan sent tokens of good will to the United States in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Look up the history of the cherry blossom trees in Washington DC for a poignant example.

Also vital to their war on China, which you kindly forgot to mention in your fair and balanced post (and it wasn't a blockade, it was a trade embargo on steel and oil).

[Asher Kingsley]

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

Asher Kingsley

It's not as simple as a lot of people in this thread are making it. "We needed to drop the bomb to save our troops. Period." I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in our country about what was going in Japan leading up to the war, the kind of arguments that were going on inside of the country, etc etc. We oversimplify constantly. How many times have you heard this story: "All the Japanese wanted to go to war, because they were following their great Emperor, and so that's just how it was." Do you think that was actually how it was? .. Really? You honestly believe that? Because I can tell you right now, you're dead friggen wrong. Painting the conflict in such black and white terms is just plain misguided, and that's what people are doing here when it comes to the bomb.

Even if you think you needed to drop a single bomb, and I'm not sure we did, why 2? Contrary to popular belief, many, many Japanese wanted to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and they *definitely* wanted to after the first attack. Why drop another? Don't you suppose there was maybe an ulterior motive? I'm sure if you think about it long enough you can think of a few.

Evidence?

The Japanese people wanted to continue the war, it was only because the Emperor himself announced the surrender that the majority accepted it, although many proceded to commit suicide. Also it was a matter of national pride and values, Japan throughout history has never lost a war to a foreign power, and surrender throughout its history was treated as the worst sin imaginable, death was preferrable to any sort of surrender is ingrained in the culture.

No, the Japanese were not peaceful, freedom loving Americans, which is pretty arrogant of you to claim. They were militaristic, patriotic, and believed they were winning.

Um.. okay, you have Takejima Ken, the Minister of Railways and Minister of Communications in the lead up to world war II, who literally *fainted* in terror and shock and anguish when the Toujou cabinet declared they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, because he didn't believe the Japanese should start a war with the west they weren't going to be able to win. There was his colleague Inoue Shigeyoshi, who was a *naval general*, who was steadfastly opposed to the growing movement within the Japanese Naval General Staff to increase their personal power and influence. And that's just two people high up in the decision making in Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor that I can think of off the top of my *head* who were opposed to the general trend of militarism.

No, the Japanese are not Americans. I've never claimed they were. And the general approach to the war was different, of course. But to lump every single Japanese person into a single category, and say they all felt a single way and acted as a single unit, because they all fit a single mold that you've cast for them.. I find that unbelievably arrogant of *you*.

[Emit Revid]

Anyone who thinks that the nukes were unnecessary are either:

- weeaboos
- bleeding heart liberal slash environmentalist slash hipster slash f*****t

[Asher Kingsley]

EsgarBlackpoxs

Asher Kingsley

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

America sent tokens of good will.. like, what exactly? A blockade of vital natural resources that the country needed to survive, thus leading to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place?

Japan sent tokens of good will to the United States in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Look up the history of the cherry blossom trees in Washington DC for a poignant example.

Also vital to their war on China, which you kindly forgot to mention in your fair and balanced post (and it wasn't a blockade, it was a trade embargo on steel and oil).

You're right, I'm not being fair and balanced. I feel like I have to be the Japanese apologist in this thread, to counter all the rampant American bias. And yes, it was a wrong choice of words, I should have said 'embargo'. But you really think America put this embargo in place because they.. what? Felt bad for the Chinese? Hell no.

[Auntie Proton]

Why is there no option for 'I don't like to make moral decisions.'?

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Asher Kingsley

EsgarBlackpoxs

Asher Kingsley

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

America sent tokens of good will.. like, what exactly? A blockade of vital natural resources that the country needed to survive, thus leading to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place?

Japan sent tokens of good will to the United States in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Look up the history of the cherry blossom trees in Washington DC for a poignant example.

Also vital to their war on China, which you kindly forgot to mention in your fair and balanced post (and it wasn't a blockade, it was a trade embargo on steel and oil).

You're right, I'm not being fair and balanced. I feel like I have to be the Japanese apologist in this thread, to counter all the rampant American bias. And yes, it was a wrong choice of words, I should have said 'embargo'. But you really think America put this embargo in place because they.. what? Felt bad for the Chinese? Hell no.

If you're going to play the apologist, then beginning with a broadside of "people make this issue too black and white", following up with a post that commits that same crime isn't the best strategy.

As for Chinese sympathy, that probably is a good part of it. We provided support before the embargo, and let's just say that the Rape of Nanking didn't exactly sway the U.S, Britain, Netherland sEast Indies to the Japanese cause, who also participated in the embargo. Furthermore, Australia banned exports of iron ore to china three years before the U.S./Britian/NEI embargo, and prevented a Japanese government owned company from acquiring an iron mine there.

[FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn]

Asher Kingsley

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

Asher Kingsley

It's not as simple as a lot of people in this thread are making it. "We needed to drop the bomb to save our troops. Period." I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in our country about what was going in Japan leading up to the war, the kind of arguments that were going on inside of the country, etc etc. We oversimplify constantly. How many times have you heard this story: "All the Japanese wanted to go to war, because they were following their great Emperor, and so that's just how it was." Do you think that was actually how it was? .. Really? You honestly believe that? Because I can tell you right now, you're dead friggen wrong. Painting the conflict in such black and white terms is just plain misguided, and that's what people are doing here when it comes to the bomb.

Even if you think you needed to drop a single bomb, and I'm not sure we did, why 2? Contrary to popular belief, many, many Japanese wanted to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and they *definitely* wanted to after the first attack. Why drop another? Don't you suppose there was maybe an ulterior motive? I'm sure if you think about it long enough you can think of a few.

Evidence?

The Japanese people wanted to continue the war, it was only because the Emperor himself announced the surrender that the majority accepted it, although many proceded to commit suicide. Also it was a matter of national pride and values, Japan throughout history has never lost a war to a foreign power, and surrender throughout its history was treated as the worst sin imaginable, death was preferrable to any sort of surrender is ingrained in the culture.

No, the Japanese were not peaceful, freedom loving Americans, which is pretty arrogant of you to claim. They were militaristic, patriotic, and believed they were winning.

Um.. okay, you have Takejima Ken, the Minister of Railways and Minister of Communications in the lead up to world war II, who literally *fainted* in terror and shock and anguish when the Toujou cabinet declared they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor, because he didn't believe the Japanese should start a war with the west they weren't going to be able to win. There was his colleague Inoue Shigeyoshi, who was a *naval general*, who was steadfastly opposed to the growing movement within the Japanese Naval General Staff to increase their personal power and influence. And that's just two people high up in the decision making in Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor that I can think of off the top of my *head* who were opposed to the general trend of militarism.

No, the Japanese are not Americans. I've never claimed they were. And the general approach to the war was different, of course. But to lump every single Japanese person into a single category, and say they all felt a single way and acted as a single unit, because they all fit a single mold that you've cast for them.. I find that unbelievably arrogant of *you*.

Takejima Ken, not even noted as a sidenote in history, irrelevent.

It is Tojo, not Toujou, also it is the Kodoha Faction leading the government, Tojo was simply Prime Minister.

There is no such thing as a "navy general", did you mean Admiral? Regardless, it is one person against, how many who were for the war?


That is fascism, a nation is united under one common goal and belief, invididual dissent is not to be tolerated. The Japanese were indeed acting as a single unit, even the minority opposing the war did their duty.

[Shou Eitoku]

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

Xiao Yong De

FRF_Hentai_Heitai_Reborn

It was a nessecity, if atomic bombs were not used, the Japanese Empire would have won by causing so many American casualties that they sign a peace treaty when the public starts complaining about the deaths, ie Vietnam, Iraq.

Quote:

I have been reading up on relations between China and Korea with Japan. It turns out from many recent happenings in both China and Korea is that they share this hate against Japan. For what reason? Japan has use the Korean's as experiments during WWII. Japan has raped many as well as killed many in China (AKA Nanking.) Japan has also killed many Koreans and Chinese civilians as well as military personnel. Both countries feel that Japan hasn't personally apologized to them. Is this immoral in Japan's fault? YES!

The Japanese did not use Koreans in Scientific Experiments, they used Chinese prisoners. Korea was a Japanese colony for 40 years before WW2, they were treated as second class citizens, not slaves.

Also Japan has indeed apologised numerous times and gave compensation. The Chinese just enjoy bitching since they are communists. And the Koreans have no jusification whatsoever as no atrocities beyond colonial policing were imposed on Koreans.

They both perceive it as unofficial because of the actions the Japanese still do. In most wars there is an apology, and there IS an apology in the lines of war reparations I suppose. A few still visit the Kazuhino Shrine (the current prime minister is standing clear from it though) that is highly controversial. It houses the dead of the war criminals during WWII. The fact that Japan occupied Korea and parts of China is enough of a justification for Korea. I really do not know much about South Korea other than that they share similar resentments with Japan though. The three countries ARE trying to make some peace out of this situation, especially with North Korea and its nuclear tendencies.

Japan also mask's some of it's darker history (especially WWII) and making it sound like Japanese nationalism, I won't debate over this because I am 100% sure that China also has it's own history smothering, but if Japan really wants better relations with China, than Japan needs to fix some stuff.

And yes thanks for correcting me, guess I was incorrect in some fields, but the issue is still out there that South Korea and China are having tensions with Japan.

Dispute over territories near South Korea, Japan, and China. Some islands that South Korea claims as theirs are also claimed by Japan, parts near the Ryukyu Islands are also in some extent claimed by China (Sea routes, etc.)

I am just saying that war is what caused this neutral , I think I should minor in East Asian Studies -.-... I don't like this tension especially when I want to visit and possibly live in those three respective countries for a while.

You mean Yakuzuni Shrine, and it is a shrine dedicated to all warriors in the history of Japan that fought to protect Japan and died for Japan. Whether they were labelled War criminals does not undermine the fact that they died fighting for their nation and what they believed in was best for it.

Korea was not "occupied", it was an annexed territory since 1896. It is to Japan as California is to the United States. It is only because the war was lost and because both the Soviets and Americans wanted to prevent the other from having it was it even made into an independent state, and thus pumped up the propaganda to make them willing to kill each other in the Korean war.

I won't gloss over Japanese Imperialism, but the fact remains that Japanese rule was far superior then being ruled by despotic warlords. Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria all benefitted from the economic gains of the Empire, while local cultures were stamped out, mass education was made available, slavery was abolished. Indeed, Japanese Imperialism is far superior to the atrocities Mao committed, and communism in general.

It is like a shrine dedicated for Hitler and the soldiers of that time, of course it'll bring some protesting. Whether it houses war criminals or not, it was apparently secretly done (not such a secret anymore.) And I'll even agree with the current prime minister's decision to stay away from such a shrine that causes such debate.

And does it still excuse some radicals of the deep south still want their Confederation? Or the Native Americans that want their land back? Korea was annexed, but as you put it, they were treated as second class citizens. It doesn't matter if it became its independent state or not. The resentment remained and some of it stills remains.

Atrocities? When The Japanese beheaded Chinese militant but only detained those from Russia? As much as people say that it was a honor to get beheading, I don't see why Russia didn't get the same fate. Don't get me wrong, I am not a particular fan of the revolution that took place with burning history, or how currently in China Mandarin is the "Standard" dialect. As atrocious as it may seem Japan looked down on it's Asian counterparts as Hitler wanted to take over Europe as well as see German, blue-eyed, as being supreme.

[Asher Kingsley]

EsgarBlackpoxs

Asher Kingsley

EsgarBlackpoxs

Asher Kingsley

Damnati

Steamcog System

We should have dropped something better. Like, a bunch of pink fuzzy teddy bears. To show them that we care, and that we don't like the war, and want it to end. That we want to promote peace and tolerance, in addition to freedom. That we can work things out diplomatically instead of militarily.

And then that's when we drop the bomb, when they least expect it.

Americans sent tokens of good will to Japan. Know how we got them back? Clipped to the shallow water torpedoes that attacked Pearl harbor.

Even if we dropped them wads of cash, they wouldn't have slowed down for an instant.

America sent tokens of good will.. like, what exactly? A blockade of vital natural resources that the country needed to survive, thus leading to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor in the first place?

Japan sent tokens of good will to the United States in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Look up the history of the cherry blossom trees in Washington DC for a poignant example.

Also vital to their war on China, which you kindly forgot to mention in your fair and balanced post (and it wasn't a blockade, it was a trade embargo on steel and oil).

You're right, I'm not being fair and balanced. I feel like I have to be the Japanese apologist in this thread, to counter all the rampant American bias. And yes, it was a wrong choice of words, I should have said 'embargo'. But you really think America put this embargo in place because they.. what? Felt bad for the Chinese? Hell no.

If you're going to play the apologist, then beginning with a broadside of "people make this issue too black and white", following up with a post that commits that same crime isn't the best strategy.

As for Chinese sympathy, that probably is a good part of it. We provided support before the embargo, and let's just say that the Rape of Nanking didn't exactly sway the U.S, Britain, Netherland sEast Indies to the Japanese cause, who also participated in the embargo. Furthermore, Australia banned exports of iron ore to china three years before the U.S./Britian/NEI embargo, and prevented a Japanese government owned company from acquiring an iron mine there.

You're right, it is counter productive.. but I didn't come here intending to be an apologist. The beginning post would be my starting out with a rational, actual position on the topic (and it's my actual position on it, btw.. I don't actually think the Japanese were totally right in their war effort or something, duh). But the more people spout the black and white views, the America was right knd of approach, with no apparent understanding for the view from the other side, which I believe they continue to do, the more my desire to present the 'black' side to the white, grows. So I've sort of turned apologist here, accidentally, in an attempt to propose an alternate view.

I'm sure there was some sympathy for China. But I'm fairly sure there was an equal calculation on the part of America that was purely realistic, the desire to contain Japanese aggression that was encroaching on our turf.


I guess my only point is, really, that we aren't saints, the "Japanese" weren't evil, and that everything about World War II is way more messy and complicated than our propaganda ever painted it. Anyone ever wonder why it's "Hitler" that was the evil force in Germany, but the "Japanese" were all evil? Have you ever thought about why that might be? If we had had the atom bomb before we got Germany to surrender in 1945, and by dropping it on Germany, we could have saved a lot of blood from being spilled on the beaches of Normandy, do you suppose we would have dropped it on Germany? It's stuff to think about, and I think people could be way more insightful about this than "We saved troops = bomb was good." That kind of view really bothers and irritates me.