If you consider mass-murder of civilian populations "good use" of an atomic weapon, then I would think you need a psychiatrist.
If it was such an effective weapon, they why, tell me, when it was used, was it not used on military targets instead of civilian ones?
Answer: after LeMay's firebombing campaign there simply were no obvious military target left to hit. The weapon was used to terrify Japan into surrender. If you call terrorism a "good use" of an atomic weapon, then perhaps you should run for President of Iran.
Japan was all but defeated by August of 1945. It was starving, had very little fuel, and it's industries were deprived of raw materials. There was no Japanese merchant marine to supply the home islands with these things, and no Japanese navy to secure the supply lines for those merchant vessels. Japan would have starved fairly quickly.
What made Japan a stil-fearsome enemy, however, was the Kamikaze,and this frightened American planners and military men even more than the prospect of a direct invasion of Japan.
We, basically, countered Japanese terror (the Kamikaze) with our own greater terror (the Atomic bomb). I don't call that "an effective weapon", I call that disgusting.
"If you consider mass-murder of civilian populations "good use" of an atomic weapon, then I would think you need a psychiatrist. "
I checked your previous posts and can't imagine how you have come to be so predictably leftist with this one.
Now that you have finished your name calling, let me remind you of the terrible losses WE suffered taking Iwo Jima when the Jap "was starving, had very little fuel, and it's industries were deprived of raw materials."
Your attempt to shrug off the far greater losses WE would have suffered taking the mainland is beneath contempt.
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was not "terrorism" - it was righteousness.
Unlike the leftist marxists who spawned your silly arguments, the US has not made a habit of colonizing its vanquished. We conquered Germany and Japan, killed their leaders, and converted their followers to Good Democracies.
We could have done the same to Russia - and prevented the GENOCIDE OF 50 MILLION- had we listened to Patton.
Millions Japanese were saved by the use of the bombs in Japan. The man in charge of their food supply indicated this in later interviews. There was every likelihood of mass suicide attacks as occurred in other Japanese held locales.
Use of the bomb ironically was an act of mercy.
I don't know of any military logistician who believed the USSR had the logistical power to wage war independent of the Allies during WWII. Additionally, the US did continue to fight, explicitly in the Pacific theater for another 2 years after Germany collapsed and was torn asunder.
The major US strategic objectives had been accomplished at the end of the two wars, and it was strongly believed that a free market and capitalism with overseas bases would dwarf totalitarianism at the end of WWII.
The new strategic and possibly operational weapons were nuclear and the US was leading all others in that category.
Only the US had the industrial might to continue a war effort. USSR did not, unless they had peace and with the case of Stalin, millions of forced laborers to rebuild their basic infrastructure, with millions perishing internally as a consequence of their own efforts.
In regards to 'mass-muder' of civilian populations, I'm a bit confused. How exactly were munition factories and armament product considered peaceful enterprises, void of any military value in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
You appear to have studied some history. I recommend Isley & Crowl, History of Amphibious Warfare along with the US Army historical publications regarding the battles of the Pacific. The Pacific campaign is probably one of the best documented and most perfect ,ilitary campaigns throughout world history. From a nation that had been attacked as one of seven major surprise coordinated attacks that left Japan in charge of over 50 % of the world's surface, the Allied and US campaigns in the Pacific culminated in a defeat of an enemy that then became our ally and now significant competitor. Few battles, let alone wars have ever been waged which have left so few lingering animosities. Most warborne animosities linger over centuries and up to around five generations. WWII in the Pacific, generally ceased animosity within 25 years or one generation after its conclusion.
This rapid cessation of hostility was in no small part due to an overwhelming display of power in a surgical fashion, but with indubitable consequence.
The same may have also occurred in the USSR, had the peoples of the USSR been allowed to regain the freedom of a democratic republic, rather than being forced into totalitarianism, then socialism for another fifty years.
More important than the type of government, though, would have been the allowance of the Gospel to have been spread to many generations of believers in that region of the world by legitimate authority.