Right.

I'm not sure why people get so worked up about dropping the nukes, anyway - the alternative was to kill millions of Japanese, so not dropping them wouldn't have saved any lives.

We already knew that nukes worked, due to the Trinity tests, so not using them in WW II wouldn't have stopped the U.S. from developing a fleet of nuclear bombers, subs, and ICBMs...

Where's the gain from not using 'em ?

Wouldn't a nuke on Haiphong Harbor, to end the Vietnam war with a split N. & S. (like Korea), and avoid the SE Asian genocides have been better -- fewer people killed?

Nukes are bad because of the numbers. Genocide is bad because of the numbers. 2 million is a much bigger, and worse, number killed than 100 000. The lack of comparison with alternatives is terrible.

The trick is to find a way to pin the blame on the US of A. And the best part about it that anyone can play.

If it hadn't dropped the nukes, the US would have been responsible for millions of Japanese deaths AND prolonging the war. If they had dropped the nukes, the US would have been responsible for, well, dropping the nukes.

It's really so easy! (And it ain't much different today....)

I started to write a comment, but this subject bores me to death. Numbers matter, lack of compassion, genocide, endless prattle.

We should have nuked the Soviets and ended it all in one fell swoop. We're accused of wanting to conquer the world, so let's conquer it.

Move out of our way, or be nuked. Kinda catchy! I like it.

I don't get Mr. Grey's comment. The whole point of this post is that if you compare the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to other attacks on cities or various battles, the nukes killed fewer people. So if numbers matter, why are attacks that killed fewer people far worse than more deadly ones?

I once backed a guy into claiming he favored a blockade to starve the Japanese population to death, as the humane alternative to nukes.

Bob:

In reality the point of the starvation blockade would have been to save the nukes for the Bolsheviks.

"So if numbers matter, why are attacks that killed fewer people far worse than more deadly ones?"

Splitting atoms makes Baby Jesus cry.

...Or something like that.

Bill:

Gaia

The many apt comments simply point out how gay the annual atom bomb festival has become. No one seriously disputes that dropping the bombs saved millions of lives, but that doesn't make any difference.

Yes, atomics are just one more weapon. However, it is in our present interest to control their use by counter-value deterrence while maintaining conventional supremacy.

This is one great comment thread !

America lives in fear.....of what?

This guy must not have been alive in the 50s and 60s, when the fear was hyped. By the 70s, the flimsy left had numbed the (more valid) fear away.

Now, they are just afraid of mega-church ministers.

The article is wrong when it claims that before it was accepted uncritically that the bombs were necessary. There has always been dissent on the issue. Much came from the far left, but I think early on there were even conservative critics. The "new theories" aren't new.

The reason atomic bombs are disliked have little to do with the numbers killed and everything with the awful effects of fallout and radiation. It's the same reason poison gas is so disliked: the manner of death is considered more horrifying than simple mangling of the body. Of course, at the time no one guessed what would happen. The plan for Operation: Downfall, the invasion of Japan, called for atomic bombs to drop on the beacheads to clear the landing zone. Marines and soldiers would have landed on the beaches in time for the after effects.

Wasn't the invasion of Japan named Operating Olympic (or Olympus)?

Operation Olympic was the name for the invasion of Kyushu, which was set for November 1945. Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu, was scheduled for March 1946. Downfall was the overall code name.