I voted no. Now dont get your panties in a bunch i have a reason and im going to tell you what it is. Now like many of you I used to believe that dropping "Little Boy" was justified, I even yelled down my teacher and the whole social justice group once in class.
But one day I was taking a drive and listening to the radio and they were interviewing Paul W. Tibbets (man who flew the enola gay). Paul didnt have any objections to dropping the bomb and he said he would do it again if his duty called for him to do so. He then went on to tell about why he thought dropping the bomb was completely useless. When Germany surrendered Japan offered terms of her surrender with only one request, that their Emperor not be emprisoned for war crimes. The U.S. did not accept these terms, to try and force their own terms on the Japanese their dropped the first atomic bomb. After destroying hiroshima they sent Japan their new terms of surrender. Japan once again requested that the emperor not be tried. The U.S. dropped a second bomb and sent another terms of surrender to the japanese. The japanses sent back their terms requesting that their emperor not be emprisoned. Instead of dropping a third bomb the U.S. agreed and the war ended.
Now my point is Japan surrendered with the same terms it would of surrendered with before two atomic bombs were dropped so I question what was accomplished by dropping the bombs, they didnt change anything.
Please comment because i dont know if this is the truth its just what i heard Paul say.