Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

If only your meme were true, you might have a point, but alas you keep repeating it.

Click to expand...

A meme? Explain. Are you denying that the US targeted two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, and then has sought to justify it on the hypothetical merits that any alternative would have been costlier?

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

A meme? Explain. Are you denying that the US targeted two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons, and then has sought to justify it on the hypothetical merits that any alternative would have been costlier?

Click to expand...

Many valuable military targets in two Japanese cities were destroyed by atomic weapons. Your continued repeating of your false narrative and your own fiction on the alternatives justifies being called a meme. And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?

As for the topic, Iran has a right to try to get nuclear weapons, and everyone else has the right to try to stop them.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Many valuable military targets in two Japanese cities were destroyed by atomic weapons. Your continued repeating of your false narrative and your own fiction on the alternatives justifies being called a meme. And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?

As for the topic, Iran has a right to try to get nuclear weapons, and everyone else has the right to try to stop them.

Click to expand...

Yes, if Iran can force it, though they haven't decided to, and no, the two cities nuked killed 200,000 plus civilians. They were the target.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Montecresto said:

How is that supporting the P5+1 agreement which ensures a peaceful Iranian nuclear program is equal in your mind to supporting Islamic radicals. And how is it that war with yet another middle eastern country is preferable?

Click to expand...

First answer the question that you keep refusing to answer.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Born Free said:

First answer the question that you keep refusing to answer.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

Click to expand...

You're repeating yourself.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

Yes, if Iran can force it, though they haven't decided to, and no, the two cities nuked killed 200,000 plus civilians. They were the target.

Click to expand...

Again, your meme about the target of atomic weapons. And you dodged my question: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Again, your meme about the target of atomic weapons. And you dodged my question: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

Click to expand...

I think that the atrocity of nuking Japan is part of the reason that the Iranian government has stated that they won't be having the weapons. The Japanese were preparing for surrender already as told by president Eisenhower, and he hated that the "US would be the first country to use that awful weapon".

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

I think that the atrocity of nuking Japan is part of the reason that the Iranian government has stated that they won't be having the weapons. The Japanese were preparing for surrender already as told by president Eisenhower, and he hated that the "US would be the first country to use that awful weapon".

Click to expand...

Public pronouncements are always to be taken with a grain of salt, you seem to believe everything that people say that you agree with. Whether the Iranians today or President Eisenhower who was not involved with any of the Pacific Theaters, but did have a political agenda while he was in office. Even the tense on the quote doesn't make sense. the US was the first country to use that awful weapon and it would only have been 1, not 2, had the Japanese surrendered. Why, oh why, did they not surrender. That is the real shame.

And you dodged my question again: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Cephus said:

"We" as in the United States. And since we all fund terrorist groups, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Plus, these "human rights violations" are being defined by the west, it would be like Iran accusing the U.S. of "human rights violations" under Sharia Law. Would we care? Of course not. So why should they take our definitions seriously? The problem with all of this is that it's all very west-centric. We think we get to make the rules and everyone else gets to follow them without a peep. It all comes down to "they're not acting in a way we think is appropriate, therefore we're going to stop them from doing what we don't want." Well who the hell died and left us in charge of the planet?

Click to expand...

I am not American, and I believe my country has every right to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities (fat chance) in order to secure the safety of ourselves and our neighbours without asking anyone's permission.

I was also unaware that the US is funding terrorist groups. There is the ISIS weapons controversy with Syria, but trustworthy information is hard to come by.
Anyway, that's not the point. Of course the US has from time to time broken the rules of civilized conduct between nations (Echelon and it's successor systems for instance). All nations have.

What defines a bandit state is if those rules are broken consistently and to such a degree that other countries decide to exclude them from decent company. Iran lives up to those conditions while the US does not.
In a world with a Muslim majority Shariah would probably indeed be the measuring stick applied, but that is not the case. For the time being our western-centric rule of "you do not get to blow your neighbours up" is what goes.

And to answer your final question, noone died and left us in charge. Nor did God or Satan hand down written instructions in easily read format. We (the civilized nations) decided to apply the rules we thought best and took that responsibility upon our shoulders.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Public pronouncements are always to be taken with a grain of salt, you seem to believe everything that people say that you agree with. Whether the Iranians today or President Eisenhower who was not involved with any of the Pacific Theaters, but did have a political agenda while he was in office. Even the tense on the quote doesn't make sense. the US was the first country to use that awful weapon and it would only have been 1, not 2, had the Japanese surrendered. Why, oh why, did they not surrender. That is the real shame.

And you dodged my question again: "And really, if only the Japanese had surrendered after the first bomb, Nagasaki would have been spared, or do you not believe that either?"

Click to expand...

No, I pointedly answered your question with Eisenhower's declaration that Japan was prepared to surrender, and the awful weapon was not needed. I'll go with Eisenhower, who was there and knows over Ali, who wasn't.

After creating the nasty weapon, it was inevitable that the virus would spread, so yeah, Iran will likely obtain them if they so desire.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:

I'm not making myself clear. Giangreco's account is not just an opinion, but the use of sources previously unknown or overlooked. His work marks a breakthrough to a new level of understanding.

Click to expand...

However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

(snip)

This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:

However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

(snip)

This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.

Click to expand...

There were also people in a position to know, that disagreed with the notion that even a land invasion was necessary.

In Eisenhower’s autobiography, Mandate for Change (p.380), Eisenhower recalls his reaction to U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, upon hearing of the successful atomic bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. Eisenhower told Stimson that he believed “that Japan was already defeated, and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Eisenhower couldn’t have been any clearer in his response: dropping the bomb was “no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Nearly twenty years later Eisenhower’s views on the use of the bomb remained unchanged. In a 1963 interview with Newsweek he unequivocally stated that prior to the atomic blast at Hiroshima “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

HK.227 said:

I was also unaware that the US is funding terrorist groups. There is the ISIS weapons controversy with Syria, but trustworthy information is hard to come by.
Anyway, that's not the point. Of course the US has from time to time broken the rules of civilized conduct between nations (Echelon and it's successor systems for instance). All nations have.

Click to expand...

We funded the Taliban, we funded Saddam Hussein, we funded any number of groups in South American wars, all of whom today would be called terrorists. We pretend they're "freedom fighters". They are not, they are puppets doing our bidding. We have a long, long history of doing it too.

What defines a bandit state is if those rules are broken consistently and to such a degree that other countries decide to exclude them from decent company. Iran lives up to those conditions while the US does not.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if the U.S. did or not, we have the military power and the political and financial strength to make us necessary, whereas Iran does not. We made it clear after 9/11 that we planned to invade any sovereign nation we thought might contain terrorists and couldn't care less what anyone else thought about it. We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq, killed tens of thousands of civilians and completely overthrew their governments. Yeah, we're angels.

In a world with a Muslim majority Shariah would probably indeed be the measuring stick applied, but that is not the case. For the time being our western-centric rule of "you do not get to blow your neighbours up" is what goes.

Click to expand...

Might makes right.

And to answer your final question, noone died and left us in charge. Nor did God or Satan hand down written instructions in easily read format. We (the civilized nations) decided to apply the rules we thought best and took that responsibility upon our shoulders.

Click to expand...

And who defines "civilized"? We do! You fail to recognize the base hypocrisy in your words.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

No, I pointedly answered your question with Eisenhower's declaration that Japan was prepared to surrender, and the awful weapon was not needed. I'll go with Eisenhower, who was there and knows over Ali, who wasn't.

After creating the nasty weapon, it was inevitable that the virus would spread, so yeah, Iran will likely obtain them if they so desire.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you answered your question, not mine.

Eisenhower was President but not when the decision was made 7 years earlier. I would regard his opinion on Japan in 1945 the same way I would regard MacArthur's opinion on Germany--interesting but not applicable. Our having the bomb or not wasn't going to stop others from trying to get it, and I lump Iran in that group.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Sorry, you answered your question, not mine.

Eisenhower was President but not when the decision was made 7 years earlier. I would regard his opinion on Japan in 1945 the same way I would regard MacArthur's opinion on Germany--interesting but not applicable. Our having the bomb or not wasn't going to stop others from trying to get it, and I lump Iran in that group.

Click to expand...

The hubris is to think you can use it and then prevent others from having it. The bar has been set, and that bar is to be a player at the table, you have to have one.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Sorry, you answered your question, not mine.

Eisenhower was President but not when the decision was made 7 years earlier. I would regard his opinion on Japan in 1945 the same way I would regard MacArthur's opinion on Germany--interesting but not applicable. Our having the bomb or not wasn't going to stop others from trying to get it, and I lump Iran in that group.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot! Such hypotheticals don't require an answer. No one had a nuclear weapon before the US devised one, and such secrets, never remain secret. And again, Eisenhower's opinion as both general during the war, and certainly as president subsequently, means that he was privy to classified information, besides his conversations with others that were in the loop, quite trump Ali's current opinion.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:

However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

(snip)

This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.

Click to expand...

Let's get one thing out of the way. I'm not a Christian and I'm uninterested in Christian teaching on war. Christian teaching is second only to Islamic teaching in justifying war. I much prefer the practical calculus of the veteran warrior, which almost always results in fewer deaths. The War Department projection of 46,000 dead is what Giangreco demonstrates was always a phony number. His work relies on previously unknown or ignored documents that were never part of any narrative, conventional or otherwise.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Boo Radley said:

However, it is known that the predicted number of U.S. combat deaths in the planned invasion escalated enormously among pro-bomb commentators from the U.S. War Department's 1945 prediction of 46,000 dead.

(snip)

This “deeply flawed” analysis by Giangreco is the very article upon which Kamm’s repeated assertion of projected high casualties relies so heavily.

Careful historians do not deny that Truman was concerned at the prospect of many U.S. lives being lost in an invasion of Japan, but the predicted numbers were far less than the inflated figures provided postwar to ‘justify’ the atomic bombings. Such figures, along with Japan’s “rejection” of the Potsdam Proclamation, form part of the conventional narrative that the atomic bombs were sadly necessary. But as Hasegawa observes astutely:

Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue. And it is here, in the evidence of roads not taken, that the question of moral responsibility comes to the fore. Until his death, Truman continually came back to this question and repeatedly justified his decision, inventing a fiction that he himself came to believe. That he spoke so often to justify his actions shows how much his decision to use the bomb haunted him.”[31]

Media Lens - Racing Towards The Abyss: The U.S. Atomic Bombing of Japan

Again, reading the same information, two different conclusions are reached. However, let's turn this a bit, might be lost is an unknown. Dropping the bomb is a definite. And it wasn't soldiers fighting a battle, but civilian lives being taken, and terrorizing the government and the people. Not amount of war causalities can justify such wanton death and destruction. Not morally. There's no Christian teaching that allows it.

Click to expand...

And btw, the "deeply flawed" accusation against Giangreco's work predates Hell to Pay by seven years. Game, set, match.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

Not at all. That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot! Such hypotheticals don't require an answer. No one had a nuclear weapon before the US devised one, and such secrets, never remain secret. And again, Eisenhower's opinion as both general during the war, and certainly as president subsequently, means that he was privy to classified information, besides his conversations with others that were in the loop, quite trump Ali's current opinion.

Click to expand...

Your and Eisenhower opinions were at least in hindsight and at most hypothetical. "That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot!" No, the continued dropping of bombs made it moot. You keep saying that they were preparing to surrender. Clearly that is speculation because they surrendered very quickly after Nagasaki was bombed. You just don't agree with the principal of Unconditional Surrender. Neither did the Japanese until that 2nd bomb. That very avoidable 2nd bomb that could have saved all those lives.

And it isn't my opinion. The Commander in Chief, Mr. Truman made the decision based on the information he had at that moment in time and no where is it recorded in history that he discussed with General Eisenhower. So you won't answer my hypothetical question but you expect everyone to believe your speculative hypothesis. Japan wasn't getting ready to surrender, they were trying to negotiate. Eisenhower had tremendous motivation to de-escalate the beginnings of the arms race so his hindsight has his motivations at heart. It didn't change the fact that he had them at his disposal and it greatly influenced his foreign policy decisions. He also knew you couldn't put the genie back in the bottle. It is the horror of their use that has kept us safe all these years.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

AliHajiSheik said:

Your and Eisenhower opinions were at least in hindsight and at most hypothetical. "That the Japanese were already prepared to surrender makes the point of land invasion, and the use of nuclear weapons, moot!" No, the continued dropping of bombs made it moot. You keep saying that they were preparing to surrender. Clearly that is speculation because they surrendered very quickly after Nagasaki was bombed. You just don't agree with the principal of Unconditional Surrender. Neither did the Japanese until that 2nd bomb. That very avoidable 2nd bomb that could have saved all those lives.

And it isn't my opinion. The Commander in Chief, Mr. Truman made the decision based on the information he had at that moment in time and no where is it recorded in history that he discussed with General Eisenhower. So you won't answer my hypothetical question but you expect everyone to believe your speculative hypothesis. Japan wasn't getting ready to surrender, they were trying to negotiate. Eisenhower had tremendous motivation to de-escalate the beginnings of the arms race so his hindsight has his motivations at heart. It didn't change the fact that he had them at his disposal and it greatly influenced his foreign policy decisions. He also knew you couldn't put the genie back in the bottle. It is the horror of their use that has kept us safe all these years.

Click to expand...

You're still wrong.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Of course Eisenhower was agenda driven????? Sorry, but he had a heated discussion with Stimson at the time. And his other comment was after he was no longer president and in retirement. What would that agenda be exactly. And what about Truman, of course he would have cause to defend his own decision to use nuclear weapons, and until his death he did.

I perused the thread a little and don't see that you commented on Iran, and it's alleged nuclear weapons ambition, any thoughts on that??

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Montecresto said:

You're still wrong.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Of course Eisenhower was agenda driven????? Sorry, but he had a heated discussion with Stimson at the time. And his other comment was after he was no longer president and in retirement. What would that agenda be exactly. And what about Truman, of course he would have cause to defend his own decision to use nuclear weapons, and until his death he did.

Click to expand...

The "surviving Japanese leaders," by 1946 completely under the control of the US occupation, of course were going to say they had wanted to surrender. Just like every German veteran every American met had fought only on the Russian front.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Cephus said:

It wouldn't matter if the U.S. did or not, we have the military power and the political and financial strength to make us necessary, whereas Iran does not. We made it clear after 9/11 that we planned to invade any sovereign nation we thought might contain terrorists and couldn't care less what anyone else thought about it. We went into both Afghanistan and Iraq, killed tens of thousands of civilians and completely overthrew their governments. Yeah, we're angels.

Click to expand...

The simple fact remains that despite those examples (the factually correct ones anyway) no critical tensions arose in relations between the US and the international community at large because of them.

Cephus said:

And who defines "civilized"? We do! You fail to recognize the base hypocrisy in your words.

Click to expand...

Since when did it become hypocritical for people who speak a language to define what words in that language mean?

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Jack Hays said:

The "surviving Japanese leaders," by 1946 completely under the control of the US occupation, of course were going to say they had wanted to surrender. Just like every German veteran every American met had fought only on the Russian front.

Click to expand...

One of the very first military history books I read cover-to-cover was Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy". It was about the firebombing of Japan. He pointed out that the atomic weapons were responsible for only about two percent of the total bombing damage done to Japan. The rest was almost all firebombing...including quite a bit of Tokyo itself. Dresden was the only firestorm on the European front. Japan had quite a few...including a "sweep conflagaration" - which survivors described as "a tidal wave of fire that traveled slower than a man could run, but faster than he could walk" - and which destroyed 98% of the city of Nagoya.

Funny how things like that stick with me forty years after reading it.

But anyway, I agree with

Cephus said:

Cephus

Click to expand...

- they were already strongly considering surrender. The atomic bombs were only the 2% that broke the proverbial camel's back.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Montecresto said:

You're repeating yourself.

Click to expand...

Yeah you won't answer the question. But in not doing you so, you answered it for me.

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Glen Contrarian said:

One of the very first military history books I read cover-to-cover was Martin Caidin's "A Torch to the Enemy". It was about the firebombing of Japan. He pointed out that the atomic weapons were responsible for only about two percent of the total bombing damage done to Japan. The rest was almost all firebombing...including quite a bit of Tokyo itself. Dresden was the only firestorm on the European front. Japan had quite a few...including a "sweep conflagaration" - which survivors described as "a tidal wave of fire that traveled slower than a man could run, but faster than he could walk" - and which destroyed 98% of the city of Nagoya.

Funny how things like that stick with me forty years after reading it.

But anyway, I agree with - they were already strongly considering surrender. The atomic bombs were only the 2% that broke the proverbial camel's back.

Click to expand...

For the record, there was a firestorm in Hamburg too.

The Japanese were prepared to fight on. Two nuclear bombs did not stop them; what stopped the Japanese was the idea we had more and would use them.