One person wrote: "To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?" This question is really a comment which reflects a certain pre-disposition. One answer is: because Japan had not yet surrendered and stopped fighting.
However, if the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war why didn't the Japanese leaders stop the fighting and stop the suffering by stopping the war?
This criticism of the atomic bomb fails to recognize that no one knew in August 1945 when Japan would stop fighting. Also this approach seems not to recognize that even without an atomic bomb the fighting and dying would continue as long as the war continued, not only in Japan but in China and elsewhere. Even another two months of war (and conventional bombing and blockade) would have killed more people than died at Hiroshima AND Nagasaki combined.
a friend of DF NY
However, if the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war why didn't the Japanese leaders stop the fighting and stop the suffering by stopping the war?
This criticism of the atomic bomb fails to recognize that no one knew in August 1945 when Japan would stop fighting. Also this approach seems not to recognize that even without an atomic bomb the fighting and dying would continue as long as the war continued, not only in Japan but in China and elsewhere. Even another two months of war (and conventional bombing and blockade) would have killed more people than died at Hiroshima AND Nagasaki combined.
a friend of DF NY