Originally Posted by Italian Guy

He would have called for UN inspections if they had existed, I tell you. Better, he would have made the UN from scratch just to get inspectors come and disarm the US

The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council — Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

Originally Posted by Corocotta

The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council — Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

Exactly. So?

So? This means that when the bombs were thrown there was not such a United Nations Organization, so I wouldn´t have been able to call for any kind of inspectors. Kind of off topic though.

You're fun, dude. That's why I said: "If it had existed"(=the UN didn't exist yet), and, further on, "he would have made the UN from scratch..."(=the UN wasn't there yet):

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

He would have called for UN inspections if they had existed, I tell you. Better, he would have made the UN from scratch just to get inspectors come and disarm the US

Oh the little wise doc teaching me when the UN was born

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

You're fun, dude. That's why I said: "If it had existed"(=the UN didn't exist yet), and, further on, "he would have made the UN from scratch..."(=the UN wasn't there yet):

Oh the little wise doc teaching me when the UN was born

The confusion came from the "if they had existed", thought you were talking about the inspectors and not about the UN, but it doesn´t matter, my english is not that good and sometimes I can misunderstood certain expresions.

Originally Posted by Corocotta

The confusion came from the "if they had existed", thought you were talking about the inspectors and not about the UN, but it doesn´t matter, my english is not that good and sometimes I can misunderstood certain expresions.

No prob man.

Corocotta........You seem to be suggesting that conventional bombs are okay, yet on one bombing raid Tokyo suffered 100,000 killed about the same number that killed in Hiroshima. So it is okay for them to killed in fire storm brought about by conventional bombing, your logic escapes me. Also you asked why they did not use conventional bombs to take out these Cities well one of the problem the American bombers were dropping bombs faster than they could be delivered. You are also going on about people still dying from cancers from this bombing, well it seems to me that some 60 years on the people would be dying any way. Yet as I have said in earlier posts former POW are dying from the mistreatment handed out to the by Japanese, so whats the difference except that you wear a CND badge

Originally Posted by 03USMC

No they weren't. The Japanese Foreign Minister made some attempts to broker a peace agreement through the Soviets but they were not real or sincere.They were a stop gap.

While Civilian Ministers might have endorsed a peace agreement the IJA was going to fight on. They even attempted a coup on the Emporer after the A bombs to for stall the surrender.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had Military Value and Industrial Value. The Japanese referred to them as Army Cities.

The fact is this. Whether or not you agree with it from your oh so high and shiney ivory tower on the moral high ground. The estimated US casualties in an invasion of the home islands was One Million. This does not take into account the POW's US, British, Aussie, Kiwi, Canadian and Dutch who would have been executed. It does not take into account the Aussie, Kiwi and British servicemen who would have taken part in the invasion and offensive. The bombings saved more than they killed.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not included in Curtis LeMay's firebombing but left for the atom bomb attacks to create the greatest effect on the Japanese.

Yes, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were deliberately left off LeMay's firebombing program.

Read "Torch to the Enemy".

Something that's often overlooked............

is that the Russians would have invaded Japan before the U.S. if the bombs weren't dropped.

The Russians had already captured the Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the American invasion of Kyushu.
And seeing that the Japanese only had 5 divisions on Hokkaido, and the Allies had scheduled the invasion of Honshu for the spring of 1946, there's every chance the Soviets would have invaded Honshu as well.

So the reasons for dropping the bombs, I believe, was political more then anything else. Truman wanted to show the Soviets that although they had the most powerful army in the world, America had the bomb, he wanted political leverage in dealing with Stalin.
Plus, even more importantly, stop the Russians from occupying any of Japan.


The Japanese were desperate to end the war from July. The Japanese doves had been working to end the war on the condition of retention of the throne, which was the sticking point, and which was given later anyway.
The first bomb was dropped, and the Japanese still hesitated, when the Soviets entered the war, that was the straw that broke them.

Historian and former American Naval officer Martin Sherwin said the war most probably have ended in July if the Americans agreed to the retention of the Emperor.
"The choice in the summer of 1945 was not between a conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare."
The sticking point was unconditional surrender'

If the guarantee of the Emperor was given, the war would have been over.
Just imagine if that guarantee was given earlier, no bombs dropped, no Russian attack in Manchuria, no Communist North Korea, meaning no Korean war, and the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives.