NationStates Jolt Archive

As it was the 60th anniverary of the dropping of the A-Bomb "Little Boy" by the US bomber the Enola Gay yesterday, which eventually brought around the end of WW2. Do you think the decision to drop the bomb was a good one or a bad one.

I think that it was a good decision as it brought about an end to a war which had cost many more lives than the dropping of the bomb had brought about. Who is to say that the entire population of Japan would not have been killed if they had not admitted defeat after the A-Bomb.

I think they should've dropped dung. Just imagine the psychological effect that bombing major cities in Japan with cow poop would have had in the long run. I think that people need to be a little more creative in war. *nod*

As it was the 60th anniverary of the dropping of the A-Bomb "Little Boy" by the US bomber the Enola Gay yesterday, which eventually brought around the end of WW2. Do you think the decision to drop the bomb was a good one or a bad one.

I think that it was a good decision as it brought about an end to a war which had cost many more lives than the dropping of the bomb had brought about. Who is to say that the entire population of Japan would not have been killed if they had not admitted defeat after the A-Bomb.

..well it didnt bring an end to WW2 but rather the end to it in that theatre of operations...personnaly i think third bomb shoulve been dropped but then again i dont get on too well with japan... >.> <.< :p i think the decision was a good one. more troops would have been killed in the alternative (an invasion of japan)..and if that had happened...well..america would never shut up about it... :p no only joking...good idea to drop the bomb. saved a lot of :) troops (who had just fought through the pacific) in to going in to battle again..

..well it didnt bring an end to WW2 but rather the end to it in that theatre of operations...personnaly i think third bomb shoulve been dropped but then again i dont get on too well with japan... >.> <.< :p i think the decision was a good one. more troops would have been killed in the alternative (an invasion of japan)..and if that had happened...well..america would never shut up about it... :p no only joking...good idea to drop the bomb. saved a lot of :) troops (who had just fought through the pacific) in to going in to battle again..

We didn't have a "third bomb"; The Project produced three bombs, the Trinity Test bomb, a slug-type bomb (little-boy, used on Hiroshima) and an Implosion-type (fat-man, used on Nagasaki); Truman's threat of continued use was a poker bluff upon the Japanese government.

it depends how you look at it really, the estimated casualties for americas operations olympic and coronet (the invasion of the japanese mainland) were around half a million US casualties as well as probably the same number of japs, if they fought to the death. So you could say that it saved lives whereas on the other hand it does seem sort of barbaric to totally destroy a city and kill 100,00 civilians (as well as the ones who died from after effects)

We didn't have a "third bomb"; The Project produced three bombs, the Trinity Test bomb, a slug-type bomb (little-boy, used on Hiroshima) and an Implosion-type (fat-man, used on Nagasaki); Truman's threat of continued use was a poker bluff upon the Japanese government.

True. But we would have had 5-8 bombs sometime in October. (I don't know how many were actually built...)

What are you, kidding? An estimated two hundred thousand civilians dead, as in innocent non-combatant men, women, and children, as well as two entire cities destroyed and generations of radioactive contamination... and this is preferable to a longer war? And here I thought the tactic of massacring huge numbers of your opponent's civilians, in order to terrorize them into submission, was frowned upon in international politics. Personally, I spent this A-bomb anniversary at a protest at the Lawrence Livermore nuclear labs, one of the primary sites where those weapons were developed, in a call for nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, the current president is pushing for a revamped nuclear arms race and the use of nuclear strikes as the first attack even in a preventative war situation. Maybe a better question is, has the world gone mad?

Actually, the only other option was invasion, which would have miserably failed. The Japanese would had fought fanatically, to the very end, they would launch jet after jet that they had been hiding for invasion, at least 10,000 Kamikaze aircraft would have been used. Once that had failed, we would have probably done blockade and bombardment, starving the Japanese out, killing millions of them by starvation. It was the better option for the A-Bomb to have been used.

it brought about an end to a war which had cost many more lives than the dropping of the bomb had brought about

What a load of bull.

The Japanese where ready to surrender. They'd been trying to for the last two months, but the US where accepting nothing but an unconditional surrender, with conditions far harsher than those imposed on Nazi Germany. When the Japanese had surrendered, it was conditional.

The Japanese had barely a chance, and with Russia ready to attack, the US had to show them what they could do. They couldn't afford to have another communist power in the East, so by dropping the bombs, they kicked off the cold war, and helped turn Japan to the capatilist super-power it is today.

The bombs where nothing to do with saving lives, they where dropped at the expense of thousands of innocent people's lives, for political gain. these bombs where NOT justified.

What are you, kidding? An estimated two hundred thousand civilians dead, as in innocent non-combatant men, women, and children, as well as two entire cities destroyed and generations of radioactive contamination... and this is preferable to a longer war? And here I thought the tactic of massacring huge numbers of your opponent's civilians, in order to terrorize them into submission, was frowned upon in international politics.

The (conventional) firebombings killed almost a million. 100,000 were killed in Tokyo over two days of March 1945 alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

"Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm."

Er, nope. Cities have been valid targets since time out of mind. Recall Napoleon, Khan, or Scipio Africanus.

Personally, I spent this A-bomb anniversary at a protest at the Lawrence Livermore nuclear labs, one of the primary sites where those weapons were developed, in a call for nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, the current president is pushing for a revamped nuclear arms race and the use of nuclear strikes as the first attack even in a preventative war situation. Maybe a better question is, has the world gone mad?

Nah. But the world knows that the genie has been out of the bottle for 50 years, and there's no forcing it back in.

What a load of bull.

The Japanese where ready to surrender. They'd been trying to for the last two months, but the US where accepting nothing but an unconditional surrender, with conditions far harsher than those imposed on Nazi Germany. When the Japanese had surrendered, it was conditional.

The Japanese had barely a chance, and with Russia ready to attack, the US had to show them what they could do. They couldn't afford to have another communist power in the East, so by dropping the bombs, they kicked off the cold war, and helped turn Japan to the capatilist super-power it is today.

The bombs where nothing to do with saving lives, they where dropped at the expense of thousands of innocent people's lives, for political gain. these bombs where NOT justified.

Yes, they were SO ready to surrender that the ship that carried one of the bombs (USS Indianapolis) was SUNK on the return trip! :rolleyes:

Have you ever read about the Battle of Okinawa? An invasion of Japan would have been even *worse*!!

Exactly. The Japanese were hell bent on fighting to the end, to never surrender. It would have cost about 500,000 to 1,000,000 American casualties just for a third of Kyushu. We HAD to use the Atomic Bombs.

You GROSSLY underestimate Japanese casualities. You may want to compare US and Japanese casulties on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

it depends how you look at it really, the estimated casualties for americas operations olympic and coronet (the invasion of the japanese mainland) were around half a million US casualties as well as probably the same number of japs, if they fought to the death. So you could say that it saved lives whereas on the other hand it does seem sort of barbaric to totally destroy a city and kill 100,00 civilians (as well as the ones who died from after effects)

Er, nope. Cities have been valid targets since time out of mind. Recall Napoleon, Khan, or Scipio Africanus.


Yeah. Or September 11th.

The atomic bombs did three very important things;

1. It ended the war, saving the lives of millions. U.S. casualties were estimated to exceed 1 million during an invasion of Japan, and Japanese casualties would be much higher.

2. It turned Japan into a Democracy. For those who claim it could have been worked out peaceably - And I doubt it could have - There would be no way to have turned Japan into a democracy without an unconditional surender.

3. It showed the horror of these weapons. It's no co-incidence that they were never used again. No one wants to use them anymore, and every step has been taken to make sure no one don't.

I'm sick of listening to people who go to Japan and apologize for dropping the bombs. They were terrible, they hurt many people, but they served a very noble purpose

What a load of bull.

The Japanese where ready to surrender. They'd been trying to for the last two months, but the US where accepting nothing but an unconditional surrender, with conditions far harsher than those imposed on Nazi Germany. When the Japanese had surrendered, it was conditional.

The Japanese had barely a chance, and with Russia ready to attack, the US had to show them what they could do. They couldn't afford to have another communist power in the East, so by dropping the bombs, they kicked off the cold war, and helped turn Japan to the capatilist super-power it is today.

The bombs where nothing to do with saving lives, they where dropped at the expense of thousands of innocent people's lives, for political gain. these bombs where NOT justified.
We had already agreed with our allies on the doctrine of unconditional surrender, we could not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender without causing serious diplomatic problems that would arise from us breaking our word.

What a load of bull.

The Japanese where ready to surrender. They'd been trying to for the last two months, but the US where accepting nothing but an unconditional surrender, with conditions far harsher than those imposed on Nazi Germany. When the Japanese had surrendered, it was conditional.

The Japanese had barely a chance, and with Russia ready to attack, the US had to show them what they could do. They couldn't afford to have another communist power in the East, so by dropping the bombs, they kicked off the cold war, and helped turn Japan to the capatilist super-power it is today.

The bombs where nothing to do with saving lives, they where dropped at the expense of thousands of innocent people's lives, for political gain. these bombs where NOT justified.

Amen!

The US could just drop the damn atomic bomb in the Tokyo Harbor, where it would be very visible, but wouldnt kill a soul. In face of such might, the Emperor of Japan would have a good excuse to surrender without loosing much face.

He did it anyway, but at the cost of thousands of lives.

What are you, kidding? An estimated two hundred thousand civilians dead, as in innocent non-combatant men, women, and children, as well as two entire cities destroyed and generations of radioactive contamination... and this is preferable to a longer war? And here I thought the tactic of massacring huge numbers of your opponent's civilians, in order to terrorize them into submission, was frowned upon in international politics. Personally, I spent this A-bomb anniversary at a protest at the Lawrence Livermore nuclear labs, one of the primary sites where those weapons were developed, in a call for nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, the current president is pushing for a revamped nuclear arms race and the use of nuclear strikes as the first attack even in a preventative war situation. Maybe a better question is, has the world gone mad?


The Livermore labs weren't around in the 1940's. They were created in the 1950's. They only relate to nuclear weapons since then, not before.

As for international politics, WWII was a "total war," and today's policies or viewpoints mean nothing, since they are modern/present views. Cities were valid targets, though usually military commanders tried to find a military target in them to bomb them (though not always the case, most of the time it was).

As for "innocent" people, the Japanese society at that time was a militaristic one, fully supportive of their governments policies and conquests until the main Japanese islands were getting bombed. Even during the bombings, they still worked in war-related factories and made war products, as well as train for the upcoming American invasion.

A funny little thing about the radiation from those bombs. Turns out (according to my local newspaper yesterday), those exposed to the radiation from the bombs had no more than a 5% increase in cancer or death related to radiation. One of the scientist/doctor that helped in the study basically said that people have a higher chance of dying from smoking than from the radiation from those bombs. Don't know how recent those results are, but thought I'd mention it.

We had already agreed with our allies on the doctrine of unconditional surrender, we could not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender without causing serious diplomatic problems that would arise from us breaking our word.

Pah! The only "condition" that the Japanese were demanding was that the Emperor kept is place.

Two atomic bombs later, and one inconditional surrender later, Hirohito was in place, thanks to Macartur that was wise enought to keep him in place; After all, the emperor was to many japanese the equivalent to Jesus Christ (and im not exagerating: The Emperor of Japan was considered a living god).

Amen!

The US could just drop the damn atomic bomb in the Tokyo Harbor, where it would be very visible, but wouldnt kill a soul. In face of such might, the Emperor of Japan would have a good excuse to surrender without loosing much face.

He did it anyway, but at the cost of thousands of lives.


Couple of problems with that view:

1) It was greatly feared the Japanese would attempt to shoot down any plane that would have carried out such a demostration, which could have possibly given the Japanese a working atomic weapon;

2) There was a fear as well that Allied POWs would have been moved to the drop zone if the Japanese would have known about it in advance (granted, harder to do if the bomb had been dropped in the harbor, as you suggest, so not totally a reason relating to your post, just a fear at the time);

3) The militarist leaders in the Japanese government tried to hide the fact that a single bomb caused the damage to Hiroshima, and tried to play it off as more firebombing. This helped lead to Nagasaki being bombed, among other reasons;

4) Emperor Hirohito didn't intervene in any meeting of the Japanese government PRIOR to Hiroshima being bombed in order to make peace. It was only AFTER Hiroshima had been bombed that he became active in the meetings, casting the timebreaking vote to attempt to make peace. Even then, a coup almost stopped that from happening, AFTER Nagasaki had been bombed.

I'm not saying that I believe in nuclear weapons now. I'm only saying that at that time, given the options THEN avaiable and what was known ONLY THEN, the atomic bombs were the lesser evil of options.

Pah! The only "condition" that the Japanese were demanding was that the Emperor kept is place.

Two atomic bombs later, and one inconditional surrender later, Hirohito was in place, thanks to Macartur that was wise enought to keep him in place; After all, the emperor was to many japanese the equivalent to Jesus Christ (and im not exagerating: The Emperor of Japan was considered a living god).


The Army Minister (whose name I forgot at the moment) also insisted on other conditions, besides the retention of the Emperor: 1) No foreign/Allied troops step foot on Japanese soil; 2) The Japanese military be allowed to disarm itself on its own timetable; 3) No warcrime trials; & 4) The Allies would pay reparations to those bombed in the cities.

Yes, the Emperor was a god to them (good analogy, by the way), but his retention was hardly the only stopping point to the military of Japan.

Amen!

The US could just drop the damn atomic bomb in the Tokyo Harbor, where it would be very visible, but wouldnt kill a soul. In face of such might, the Emperor of Japan would have a good excuse to surrender without loosing much face.

He did it anyway, but at the cost of thousands of lives.
And poison the Japanese's primary food supply (fish) for god knows how long? Yea...I'm not sure how many lives that would've saved...

Alot of you seem to be forgetting that we only had two operational atomic bombs at the time. A demonstration somewhere would have been a rediculous gamble, since without the devestation, there's no way the emeperor would have surrendered. We told him we would just keep dropping them until he surrendered, and that's really the only reason he did.

What are you, kidding? An estimated two hundred thousand civilians dead, as in innocent non-combatant men, women, and children, as well as two entire cities destroyed and generations of radioactive contamination... and this is preferable to a longer war? And here I thought the tactic of massacring huge numbers of your opponent's civilians, in order to terrorize them into submission, was frowned upon in international politics. Personally, I spent this A-bomb anniversary at a protest at the Lawrence Livermore nuclear labs, one of the primary sites where those weapons were developed, in a call for nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, the current president is pushing for a revamped nuclear arms race and the use of nuclear strikes as the first attack even in a preventative war situation. Maybe a better question is, has the world gone mad?

So, invading the Japanese mainland would have been more acceptable to you? Some casualty estimates of American troops were in the milion plus range. This doesn't include the Japanese that would have died from continued bombing and fire bombing of major japanese cities like tokyo. My guess is that total casualties would be in the 2-3 million range. (comments?) While I really wish these weapons had never been used, I prefer the option that was used. And learn your history. The Trinity project took place in NEW MEXICO. The Livermore site is in California.

Honestly, I think we could've let Russia invade Japan. Would they REALLY have noticed another million casualties?

The atomic bombs did three very important things;

1. It ended the war, saving the lives of millions. U.S. casualties were estimated to exceed 1 million during an invasion of Japan, and Japanese casualties would be much higher.

2. It turned Japan into a Democracy. For those who claim it could have been worked out peaceably - And I doubt it could have - There would be no way to have turned Japan into a democracy without an unconditional surender.

3. It showed the horror of these weapons. It's no co-incidence that they were never used again. No one wants to use them anymore, and every step has been taken to make sure no one don't.

I'm sick of listening to people who go to Japan and apologize for dropping the bombs. They were terrible, they hurt many people, but they served a very noble purpose

1. Saving lives is a matter of opinion. The estimates for the casualties following an invasion of Japan are just that: ESTIMATES. There is no way that anyone can possibly know how many people would have died - on either side. And it didn't actually end the war: it simply forced the Japanese to surrender on America's terms. They had wanted to surrender months beforehand, but the US wouldn't allow it: they continued the war, not the Japanese, by refusing to accept their previous surrenders.

2. Japanese Democracy. How are atomic bombs being dropped on two major Japanese cities going to bring about Democracy? Sorry, I just don't get it. And if the bombs were never dropped, it is likely that a constitution would have been introduced in Japan in the last half century anyway: no country can have an autocratic government that works efficiently and without corruption, and eventually the Japanese people would have wanted self rule in one form or another. However, an Emperor still sits on the Chrysanthemum Throne of Japan, and perhaps this is not your idea of democracy? *Just a guess*
And the Japanese surrender was not unconditional. The surrender stipulated that the Imperial Family was to remain in Japan - amongst other things. I'd call that a condition. Indeed, the Constitution demands that the Emperor remains as Head of State, but with no executive or legislative powers - very much like all Constitutional monarchs (except the Prince of Liechtenstein, Who has enormous influence on executive and legislature, although He is not an autocrat).

3. Showing us the horror of the weapons. In this I agree with you. But I think that it was the wrong way to demonstrate the destructive powers of the bomb. Dropping two bombs on major cities in a nation that was ready to surrender is cold-blooded murder, in my opinion.
And saying that no-one wants nuclear weapons anymore is quite untrue. Many nations are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. Eight (known) countries have nuclear capabilities, and about thirty more have the technology and the knowledge to make nuclear weapons. The five first nuclear powers - USA, Russia, UK, France, China - have destroyed many of their weapons since the fall of the USSR, but aren't likely to destroy many more, and the other nuclear powers - Israel, Pakistan, India (North Korea unknown) - show no efforts to destroy or abandon their weapons.

So really, all the bombs did was act as a test for the Americans so they could see how effective their bomb would be in a situation like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
and
Force the Japanese to surrender on America's terms, despite having tried to surrender in the past
and
Mercilessly murder half a million INNOCNENT people - directly and indirectly - in cold blood.

As for "innocent" people, the Japanese society at that time was a militaristic one, fully supportive of their governments policies and conquests until the main Japanese islands were getting bombed. Even during the bombings, they still worked in war-related factories and made war products, as well as train for the upcoming American invasion.

Support of their Government and continuing to make military supplies when there was a threat of invasion doesn't mean they weren't innocent.

So, hypothetically speaking, if your country was about to be invaded (I don't know what country you are from), you would abandon support for your government and stop making munitions and stop training the military?

Thought not.

I'm sure that if you were the one being bombed you would think to yourself:
"Why are they bombing us INNOCENT people?"
After all, the people of a country don't actually make legislative or executive decisions: they simply elect the people that do. It would be the fault of the executive of your country and the bombers' country if you were bombed: you would be completely blameless, INNOCENT, as the Japanese that died instantly and in the fallout were.

Killing civilians was standard practice in the war. Bombing missions killed many civilians. The "Bomb" simply killed many at once instead of over a period of time using conventional weapons.

Killing civilians was standard practice in the war. Bombing missions killed many civilians. The "Bomb" simply killed many at once instead of over a period of time using conventional weapons.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the victims weren't innocent.

And in THE war? In ANY war.

*That's the point I'm trying to make, not that civilians were only killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "incidents"*

Support of their Government and continuing to make military supplies when there was a threat of invasion doesn't mean they weren't innocent.

So, hypothetically speaking, if your country was about to be invaded (I don't know what country you are from), you would abandon support for your government and stop making munitions and stop training the military?

Thought not.

I'm sure that if you were the one being bombed you would think to yourself:
"Why are they bombing us INNOCENT people?"
After all, the people of a country don't actually make legislative or executive decisions: they simply elect the people that do. It would be the fault of the executive of your country and the bombers' country if you were bombed: you would be completely blameless, INNOCENT, as the Japanese that died instantly and in the fallout were.

Why are you not condemning the firebombings?
Why are you not condemning the kamikaze?
Why are you not condemning the Bataan Death March or the forced labors building the Asiatic Railway?

Look, it's *war*. Bad things happen. If you're going to say they're innocent, they I can extrapolate that every SS officer below the rank of General was also innocent, as they were only following orders for the country. :rolleyes:

Why are you not condemning the firebombings?
Why are you not condemning the kamikaze?
Why are you not condemning the Bataan Death March or the forced labors building the Asiatic Railway?

Look, it's *war*. Bad things happen. If you're going to say they're innocent, they I can extrapolate that every SS officer below the rank of General was also innocent, as they were only following orders for the country. :rolleyes:

I generally condemn all war, as it shows an inability to listen and sort out problems in a civilised manner.
I just think that the nuclear bombing of Japan was particularly "bad".
And no, the SS officers were not innocent. They did some atrocious things, and they were not civilians, they were military.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the victims weren't innocent.

And in THE war? In ANY war.

*That's the point I'm trying to make, not that civilians were only killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "incidents"*

I figured we were talking on WWII given the topic. Bombing cities was standard so killing civilians was obviously the intention. It was certainly wrong but that was the point I was trying to make. People decrying the use of the Bomb because of the casualties. Of course they don't think about all the casualties in the past. The fire bombing raid on Tokyo for instance?

I figured we were talking on WWII given the topic. Bombing cities was standard so killing civilians was obviously the intention. It was certainly wrong but that was the point I was trying to make. People decrying the use of the Bomb because of the casualties. Of course they don't think about all the casualties in the past. The fire bombing raid on Tokyo for instance?

If you read what I just posted, you know that I don't think any kind of bombing or armed conflict is necessary.
And I think that people decry the use of the A bomb because of the amount of people it killed and the way it killed them.

If you read what I just posted, you know that I don't think any kind of bombing or armed conflict is necessary.
And I think that people decry the use of the A bomb because of the amount of people it killed and the way it killed them.

That people would get upset on the numbers of killed is what I don't understand. Do people believe that it isn't as big a deal when people are killed in small amounts every day but when alot are killed at once THEN it is a big deal?

Amen!

The US could just drop the damn atomic bomb in the Tokyo Harbor, where it would be very visible, but wouldnt kill a soul. In face of such might, the Emperor of Japan would have a good excuse to surrender without loosing much face.

He did it anyway, but at the cost of thousands of lives.
Congratulations, you've just irradiated the Japanese water supply and killed off their last main food resource - fish.

But most people here seem to believe that the dropping of the bombs were justified. In the other Hiroshima thread, a lot of people just continue to argue about why nukes should have never been used.

Support of their Government and continuing to make military supplies when there was a threat of invasion doesn't mean they weren't innocent.

I agree with you there. However, from my understanding and readings, the workers in factories or other war-related areas were not forced at gunpoint to make a gun or bomb or airplane. This is not to say that that did not happen; I don't know for sure, so I cannot say definitively one way or another on this point. My intention is that, given the free choice (without being forced), most of who would be considered "innocents" or "civilians" freely worked in war-related factories by their own choice. If they did not support their government and its choices, I would surmise that they would not want to be related to things that went against their opinions/wishes. Just an observation here, mainly.



So, hypothetically speaking, if your country was about to be invaded (I don't know what country you are from), you would abandon support for your government and stop making munitions and stop training the military?

Thought not.

I'm an American, btw. And it would depend on the situation, such as who started the conflict and why it's being waged. If my nation did not start it, and was fighting to save itself from being conquered and annihilated(sp) as a distinct culture, I would do everything possible to avoid that. Likewise, if I disagreed that my nation start a war, I would oppose it in my own ways and not join anything related to war-making. It is very situational and tricky, and I do not feel like I can relate my feelings well enough into words here, at least at the moment.



I'm sure that if you were the one being bombed you would think to yourself:
"Why are they bombing us INNOCENT people?"
After all, the people of a country don't actually make legislative or executive decisions: they simply elect the people that do. It would be the fault of the executive of your country and the bombers' country if you were bombed: you would be completely blameless, INNOCENT, as the Japanese that died instantly and in the fallout were.

Of course I would resent being bombed, espcially if I lived away from anything military-related (which I do). However, in a democracy, people do carry a portion of the blame if their country's leaders behave inappropriately(sp). Sure, only a relative few make the laws and control the government, but we elect them based on them doing the best interests of the whole country, not to serve their own interests.

This is the main difference between the Japanese society of 1930/1940s and societies today. There are many differences between viewing of combatants, cities, and civilians. There is no way to avoid unwanted deaths, period. They happen. Back then, though, it was more acceptable to bomb a city due to the sheer scale of the war, in terms of destruction, manpower, and material. Now is completely different in terms of acceptable behavior in war. I think people forget that a lot, and interject personal beliefs of now on the past.

That people would get upset on the numbers of killed is what I don't understand. Do people believe that it isn't as big a deal when people are killed in small amounts every day but when alot are killed at once THEN it is a big deal?

Well, think of it as it is today. What gets more coverage: a single passenger-filled airliner missing the runway and catching fire at the edge of said runway, or the hundreds of car crashes that happen daily?

Like Little India said, it also had to do with the way they were killed, i.e. the revelation of a new type of weapon in the atomic bombs.

I guess then you aren't familiar with the coup attempt that would have seen the Japanese not surrender at all. This was after both atomic bombs. There are some Japanese on remote Isalnds that did not surrender until the 1970's.
Surrender was an alien concept as were prisoners of war.

Pah! The only "condition" that the Japanese were demanding was that the Emperor kept is place.

Two atomic bombs later, and one inconditional surrender later, Hirohito was in place, thanks to Macartur that was wise enought to keep him in place; After all, the emperor was to many japanese the equivalent to Jesus Christ (and im not exagerating: The Emperor of Japan was considered a living god).

I generally condemn all war, as it shows an inability to listen and sort out problems in a civilised manner.
I just think that the nuclear bombing of Japan was particularly "bad".
And no, the SS officers were not innocent. They did some atrocious things, and they were not civilians, they were military.

Why on Earth do you believe mankind to be civilised? Because we have indoor plumbing? Technology changes: the nature of man does not.

And the "innocent" Germans of Dresden, who knew damned well about the concentration camps? How about the ones that turned their Jewish neighbors in?