[The_Rorschach]

"The 1st bomb needed to be approved by Truman, but after that, there was no provision mandating civilian leadership. Groves didn't even ok the dropping on Nagasaki with Truman. Furthermore, nobody could be certain that the Japanese would've surrendered post-bombings, since they damn near didn't. Had they not, plans were in the working for more bombs. Groves would've kept dropping them, and Truman estimated that another one could've been ready in one week. Truman also set the ball rolling on developing a Hydrogen bomb."

It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too. From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.

". . .but considering what the "Japs" had done to us, add to that the heavy (and racist) propaganda mill that was spinning out stories, and you have one outraged public."

So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.

"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.

"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American, their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country. I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.

"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.

They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms. Like in 1905, and 1918, they believed that the conditions were negotiable, as the US had always compromised with them in the past, it was there mistake as much as it was ours, and they paid for it. Just like our ships paid for their hostilities in China before the war began, where they were sunk simply because they were there.

It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.

The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?

I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.

"They weren't certain even after all of the murder and destruction, and had Hirohito and Suzuki not pushed for it (putting their lives in jeopardy from their own people), the war would've been prolonged. Had things been slightly different internally, the "bloodiest war ever" may have continue, only now with the standards much lower."

Pure conjecture. Maybe Jane Fonda would have flown to Japan and fucked Hirohito and given birth to the anti-AmeriChrist bringing about the end of the world before 1969. Or maybe clouds would have given birth to kittens, horses begun singing in Gaelish and neon frogs with yellow wings saved the planet from ultimate destruction.