[JohnBovenmyer]

Sure we can mourn the death of A-bomb victims. There were many US and other allied POWs there being used as forced labor under conditions we didn't inflict on those we captured. But then, unlike the Japs, we'd signed the Geneva Conventions. The POWs didn't deserve to be nuked, but they were unavoidable collateral damage of the shock therapy needed to save millions of Japanese from the alternative consequences of their own suicidal ideology. Not to mention saving more Allied lives in the implementation of the alternative than the Japs lost to the 2 bombs. I've been told by many old vets that the bomb likely saved their lives. As it was the two bombs were barely enough; the Jap army's coup to extend the war nearly succeeded.

[MNJohnnie]

As it was the two bombs were barely enough; the Jap army's coup to extend the war nearly succeeded.

Not only that. As any competent Historian can tell you, the Japanese infrastructure was collapsing under American attack in the Summer of 1945. So suppose we do what the the Hysteric Left wanted in the Summer of 1945. Hold the bombs and lay "siege" to Japan with Naval and Air attacks? The result would of been 10s of millions of Japanese civilians dieing of disease and starvation. By any competent calculation dropping the bombs save hundreds of thousands of American lives and MILLIONS of Japanese lives. Then the Hysteric Left might want to read about the numbers of Japanese Civilians who died in the fighting on Siapan and Okinawa. Since the Japanese were mobilizing every able bodied person for the "decisive battle" any Invasion of Japan would of been a brutal mass slaughter. So here is the choice facing the USA in Aug 1945, drop the bombs, kill around 200,000 civilians and hopefully shock the Japanese into surrender. Lay seige and starve 10s of millions to death. Invade and kills millions as "collateral damage". The answer is so obvious and simple even the most hysteric Hate America bigot should see the answer The end result