I did my dissertation on the atomic bombing of Japan so have read a lot of the original sources. There wasn’t really any discussion on whether they should drop the bombs or what the aims of them would be. Nearly all of the discussion was on how they would be dropped and what the target would be. They chose the two targets for 2 main reasons; they were relatively untouched by the war so the destructive force the bombs could be seen, and they were big enough targets to hit and there was nothing to stop the blast e.g. mountain ranges.

The main reason they wanted these criteria was to shock the Japanese government (and possibly the Soviets). They deliberately picked civilian targets to do this.

There was no mention (in the documented history, at least) of them expecting unconditional surrender as a result of the bombing. They used the bombs simply because they had them and saw no reason not to. If it was simply the shock they wanted to scare the Japanese into surrender then the declaration of war from the Soviets could potentially have also worked. The declaration wasn’t a surprise to the Americans, they’d been discussing with them for months, although the timing was probably brought forward by Hiroshima.

After the event, a lot of the leading military figures came out against the need to use the bomb, although of course this is “what if” history. But the idea that they wouldn’t have surrendered without it is also guess work. As others have said, they’d twice approached the US indirectly with offers of peace, although not unconditional surrender. So the idea of them been willing to surrender wasn’t exactly unknown.

In regard to the random photos of Japanese military atrocities, I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is. Yes, their army committed some horrendous war crimes against both POWs and civilians, but I’m not sure how that justifies nuking a city full of civilians. If the mass murder of civilians is bad, then it’s bad regardless of the nationality doing it (see also Dresden and Katyn for other examples).

Seems not that different…

did the allies execute pows that had escaped and returned to friendly lines ?

TurnerGuy

Seems not that different…

did the allies execute pows that had escaped and returned to friendly lines ? [/quote]

Presumably he’s referring to the fact that (according to your anecdote at least) both sides executed POWs. If you release a prisoner because you are certain they will be murdered it’s little different from killing them yourselves.

This ignores the fact that the allies didn’t have an official policy of starving, degrrading, torturing and executing POWs. The Japanese on the other hand……inhuman.

So we still have Mr Trump making threats and Kim Jong, just soaking up all the media attention, and the arm companies hoping to make huge profits on the sales of weapons and the like.

Does North Korea have any strategic worth, minerals oil, exports etc, is it worth killing and injuring many people just to be top dog, then we have China on the border, awaiting things to happen and any nuclear weapon is going to cause damage accross their borders in the for of radioactivity, which they will not be happy about.

Can’t we just get them to do a job swap?

Does North Korea have any strategic worth

A land border with China. Which I believe is the main reason the country still exists.

For Cranberry and Stewartc the operative word there is becoming.

Then there’s this little beauty from The Register seems like they’re on their way.

Trump administration has expressed hostility toward protesters, has conflated all protesters with lawbreakers, and has characterized political opposition as being anti-American.

from the linked article.