Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Second there is the recorded historical fact that there were people in the Japanese government who suspected a ruse even after Hiroshima.

I'm sure that the handful of farmers who witnessed your proposed explosion would be very impressed.

No. My claim is that the Japanese government would suspect that we had fooled their witnesses with a ruse.

Setting aside the impossibility of deploying this person at a moment's notice, such a person would also be lacking in the necessary expertise.

And a witness without enough expertise to convince the Japanese government that they saw a real A-bomb.

Note that this was a NUCLEAR SCIENTIST.

You do realize that if I successfully address something the first time, I'll be able to successfully address it when you repeat it?

Also selectively quoted out of context to make it sound like he said the opposite of what he really said.

Yeah, I did note that. That's why I posted it. So now you have no excuse for believing that no qualified person was available to travel to a nonlethal demonstration site to make the same evaluation as they did at Hiroshima.

Yes, you've made the point that what everyone thought after the bombs were dropped has nothing to do with what they were thinking before the bombs were dropped. Everyone has heard that loud and clear.

This is what he said: "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

Since you believe that the statement was taken out of context, then why don't you provide the proper context?

I am pointing out that the A-bombs were dropped because we had to do something to end Japan's reign of terror.

There is still the fact that they'd not be in a position to witness the demonstration due to your proposal involving Japan being given very short notice of the demonstration.

I've never said any such thing. I neither know nor care what they thought about using the A-bombs before they were used.

My only point is that they did not express any such opposition to the US government.

He was explaining that Japan's surrender took them all by surprise, as they had expected that Japan would not surrender until they had pounded on them considerably harder.

Well let's see. The Japanese Naval threat was down to zero; their air power was virtually nonexistent; almost every major city was firebombed to destruction; the effects of a naval sea blockade created great scarcities,

and yet you believe that Japan was just getting ready to make its move, and that's why atomic bombs needed to be dropped a couple cities full of people.

The Strategic Bombing Survey provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo:

The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage.

The survey concluded—plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945—that

“probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly.”

No previous or subsequent conventional bombing raid ever came close to generating the toll in death and destruction of the great Tokyo raid of March 9-10. The airborne assault on Tokyo and other Japanese cities ground on relentlessly. According to Japanese police statistics, the 65 raids on Tokyo between December 6, 1944 and August 13, 1945 resulted in 137,582 casualties, 787,145 homes and buildings destroyed, and 2,625,279 people displaced.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You were just shown that a nuclear expert and a General from Japan arrived in Hiroshima and, after anylizing the site, confirmed that the devastation was caused by an atomic bomb. There was no need for them to be there before the event. Are you still going to maintain your position that a nonlethal demonstration was impossible?

Oh, well my point is that they certainly did after the event, which serves to clarify the fact that burning up a couple cities full of people served no military purpose and was therefore unnecessary.

Really? It sounds to me like he was saying: "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

It probably sounded like that's what he was saying because that's what he said.

Your new proposal doesn't have the flaws that your previous proposal did.

As I recall, the reason why this option was rejected was the fear that Japan simply would deny reality if they were not confronted with the loss of an entire city.

Your point about postwar comments does not in any way contradict the fact that the reason why the US dropped the A-bombs was because we had to do something to end Japan's reign of terror.

you guys realize that this has become a mutual masturbatorium

You kept denying the validity of any proposal. So I showed you one that you can't deny because it's based on what really happened.

You should think before accepting and repeating such a ridiculous explanation. I just showed you that they were already confronted with the loss of the entirety of many cities and hundreds of thousands of civilians and homes, and the reality of two and a half million refugees.

You must have missed this:
The Strategic Bombing Survey provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo:

So, with the Japanese naval threat was down to zero, their air power virtually nonexistent, almost every major city firebombed to destruction, and significant scarcities created by an effective naval sea blockade, you nevertheless believe that Japan was just getting ready to make its move to continue its reign of terror, and that's why atomic bombs needed to be dropped on a couple cities full of people. I see.

you guys realize that this has become a mutual masturbatorium because I dont think anyone is really reading anything that either of you are writing.

Your arguments, while at first important and entertaining, are now becoming one of those epic 20 page rebuttal, sur rebuttal things that many of us used to engage in but who, the late Frank Apisa, the champion at posting long boring self- possessed multi page skrees set the example for which you two seem to wish to attain.

.....and, who are both mutually wrong!

you guys realize that this has become a mutual masturbatorium

and, who are both mutually wrong!

What really happened is top scientists advised that a demonstration was impossible and they should attack a live target, and the government followed their recommendation and attacked a live target.

If you wish to disagree with the scientists who made the recommendation, that is your right.

Note that this post war assessment that you are repeatedly quoting does not in any way contradict the fact that the US dropped the A-bombs on Japan because we had to do something to end the reign of terror that they were inflicting on the world.

They did not surrender until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.

BillW wrote:

.....and, who are both mutually wrong!

Translation: If I were just a little smarter, I would understand that only one side of the argument can be wrong. And if I were way smarter, I would show why.

Yes, and the reasoning behind these scientists' advice was based on the assumption that if a nonlethal demonstration was announced, Japanese air power was sill adequate to give serious interference. However, that is not supported by the facts, as the Enola Gay was not given serious interference. A warning concerning the location of the demonstration could have been announced just minutes before the drop, leaving no time for interference. The military would have known this.

And these scientists were under the mistaken impression that a ground invasion was inevitable unless the bombs were dropped. But most military leaders at that time later stated that with or without the bomb, the Japanese would have surrendered, as well they did after the Soviets invaded Manchuria.

Thinking that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima would end the war was like thinking that the 66th destroyed city is always the charm.

It is odd that the U.S. military would seek the counsel of scientists on this matter who had already said:
"We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems which are presented by the advent of atomic power."

With virtually all of Japan destroyed and on fire, I'd say that that marked the end of their reign of terror was a forgone conclusion.

Which happened to coincide with the the Soviets declaration of war.