To cut through all the crap, I’ll just say that looking through the intervening 60 years of hindsight may make alternatives to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem viable to those on the left, but analysis in the light of the moment in time when the decision was made and the bombs were dropped, without including ANY information and analysis which was not available at the time, leads one to conclude that there were in fact NO viable alternatives other than the one of choosing among the 3 or 4 other cities which had also been spared heavy bombing, as sites for deployment.

One commentor mentioned that a recent work published by Harper-Collins makes the claim that at the time the bombs were used that we had dozens of bombs available. This is a patently false and unsupportable claim that is totally at odds with every other source of information that has ever been published regarding the development and deployment of the two bombs used, including numerous first person accounts of the scientists who built the bombs, the Naval personnel who transported the components, and the Air Corps personnel charged with deployiing them. Just because ONE new source makes a claim like this does not make it so. The amount of bomb grade Uranium 235 and Plutonium used for the test device and the two deployed bombs practically exhausted the readily available supply of enriched bomb grade materials, and it would have taken months of painstaking work to process enough to make more bombs.

In the mindset of the country at the time there was no room for “demonstrations”, and as I stated before, the test device at Trinity was a static “proof of concept” test. Two different types of initiators were used in case one proved unsatisfactory, and if one did, then only one bomb would have been available for immediate use.

Some think we were too quick on the trigger in dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki.This too is false when viewed through the lense of August, 1945 and considering nothing learned since. While some of the Japanese hierarchy, led by the Emperor, considered surrender after the first bomb, the military leaders who actually controlled the country would have none of it. The timing of the second bomb was very deliberately considered. The US gave the Japanese leadership long enough to work on a surrender reply, but not so long as to appear that we were not committed to their collective annihilation if they refused for long.

In recent times many on the left have tried to make the US out as evil for choosing to drop the bombs, intimating that US casualties MIGHT not have been as bad as postulated in the lead up to invasion. WIth only what they knew at the time on the table, this is not supportable by any stretch of logic. Casualty estimates were based on the hard cold facts of immediate experience. In a day and age when the loss of 14 of our finest Marines, all from the same unit, and in a single engagement, brings a collective gasp of horror from the entire Nation, it is hard to grasp the impact of the huge numbers of casualties we were taking daily in WWII. Combat actions in WWII often might result in only 14 marines SURVIVING out of a single unit following a single engagement.

The Japanese were right about one thing. If they could cause enough casualties and drag things out long enough we might give up and offer terms in spite of how badly we were beating them. The problem was that they were 60 years ahead in their thinking, of a couple of generations of American “moonbats” being born and entering into the political discourse. It most likely wouldn’t have worked in 1945.

Oddly enough I saw some interviews of some Japanese civilians on television last night, who were actually thankful for the dropping of the bombs, including one man who lost a brother and mother to one of the bombs. The consensus among them was that the bombs hastened the end of the war and avoided a protracted invasion and pacification, that probably would have resulted in their own deaths.

a) “Claims” is still the operative word. Considering that I have been interested in this topic for about 35 years, and this is the very FIRST I’ve ever heard of such a claim, you’ll understand I withhold any particular faith in the notion.

First off, every previous account I have been exposed to claims otherwise… and puts the amount of available material at 3 to 4 bombs, one of which was used at Trinity.
Second, I do grasp enough of the techniques to comprehend that a mass amount itself with mid-40s tech is unlikely. The techniques used were radically new, developed solely for the purpose of producing this weapon, and had no purpose at that point outside the production of the weapon — never before had anyone tried to isolate chemical isotopes from one another, esp. not in any quantity.
Thirdly, there is the canister, the existence of which only makes sense if the stuff is in short supply — there was a large concrete reinforced cannister built in the midwest, and shipped out there to Trinity. Purpose? In case the explosion was a “mostly” dud — i.e., if the chemical explosives went off, but the nuclear reaction did not take hold — the bomb was dropped into this cannister, the purpose of which was to help retain the material together as much as possible and make the reconstruction easier. This thing was huge (it may have been the largest single object ever transported by rail — certainly it was at the time), preposterously heavy, and makes no sense at all if there was enough material available to make a dozen or more.

b) Murdoch is not above publishing/distributing something which is clearly crap but which he knows people will buy. Look at Fox and “American Idol”. One need not presume liberal bias to still presume this thing has no merit in the eyes of anyone with a clue.

If the civilians didn’t want to be bombed all they needed to do was surrender.

That goes for Germany as well as Japan.

BTW precision bombing in WW2: the CEP on average was 3 miles.

What kinds of targets are amenable to destruction by bombs given a CEP of 3 miles?

Cities.

Or as one wag put it: One bomb – not enough. Two bombs – too many.

Civilians are not necessarily noncombatant, especially in a case of total war where the entire capacity of a nation is mobilized, and especially where Bushido is the national ideology. Of course there are innocents in war, but it is simply rhetorical sleight of hand to equate civilians to noncombatants. Sometimes civilians are noncombatants, and sometimes they are citizens.

Traditionally civilians were exempted for slaughter not because they were somehow innocent of their rulers’ decisions to pursue their own little squabbles, but because they were too valuable as the means of production to be killing wantonly. Civilians and their cities were often the spoils of war and killing them off was stupid in the way that killing rustled cattle is stupid. You get hints of this thinking as far back as Sun Zi, when he advises commanders to attempt to turn rather than annihilate enemy soldiers – soldiers! – because of their obvious value.

In tgibbs world it’s never important or relevant who starts things or who is morally superior because he belongs to the Blame America Club & the primary objective is to paint as bad a portrait of America as possible. For the BAC any defense of America is “lame.” Tgibbs will prate with an empty head about the ethical ascendancy of the Nazis, the Nazis mind you, over the Allies in WW2 & not be able to comprehend the absurdity of such prattle. There was never a war more clear-cut in its moral imperatives but such realities do not encroach upon tgibbs’s fantasy-history. Tgibbs, who seeks(but ludicrously fails) to project an aura of intellectualism, doesn’t even know how to use double quotes. When I’m not laughing I want to retch.

This is true, but I don’t see the relevance. We weren’t talking about “indiscriminate bombing,” we were talking about fire and nuclear bombing of cities that produces massive civilian casualties. In any case, being morally superior to Nazi Germany isn’t much of an accomplishment, so “the Nazi’s started it” is a pretty lame excuse. Moreover, the Nazis never achieved the massive civilian casualties of the Allied firebombings of Germany (about 40,000 vs. 400,000).

BWAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahaaa….

Kennedy f’ed up and got his boat blown out from under him, then painted himself as a couragious man instead of the semi-comptetent he was.

Carter was… ooooh… a bonehead on a submarine. Yeah, there’s a man on the front lines of freedom…

And Kerry, well, 250-odd real soldiers who served with him don’t seem to think too much of his service activities.

Needless to say, I’m not overly impressed with your citations about the illustrious military service of “recent” liberals…

If you want to cite a well-known liberal for his military service, you pretty much have to go for John McCain.