[ScruU2wice]

Isn't it hard to remove nuclear weapons, anyways. It's kinda like everyone's got a gun pointed at each other and everyone is trying to convince the others to put them down if they'll put theirs down. It would require a certain amount of trust.

I think Achimp has a good point with the clash of cultures and what one may say is right, might be what another says is evil. But, I think this question has everything to do with morals.

Another thing that no one seems to touched on is the survivors of the blast who faced hardships for their own people and how they were the first ones to face the affects of the radiatioctive bomb. I know that this affect couldn't have been forseen but this might have been one of the most horrible affects of the bombing and should be weighted heavily on the conscience of the US.

Alotta of what anyone argues on this topic has to do with a deal of assumption. I'm not trying to poke at anybody but you can't say for sure that the US would win the war if they hadn't wont the war, and on the other hand you can't doubt that a considerable amount of americans would be saved by not having a mainland invasion. Just how many lives, is the gray area that no one can definative answer to. That's exactly what makes this a difficult topic to argue for either way.

The only thing I keep getting kinda bugged about is where all this information is coming from... Like where did you read about the suit case bombs and where are the figures of how many people were killed in certain invasions and where you can find out the type of technology japanese were making. I know that you can't cite every single bit of information you give, but i get frustrated when I'm either using some of it in a debate and people just shoot it down by asking where it did you get that information, or when some of my points contradict another persons.