Not for nothing, but it's not like we just snuck up on Japan one day and nuked two of their cities out of the blue. We had exhausted economic and political pressure options long before Pearl Harbor got us involved directly, and 3.5 years later it wasn't like Japan was ready to quit.

If you're going to vilify the United States government for making the Hiroshima decision, you should provide an alternative for it. Saying that a nonviolent solution would be preferred is obvious to everyone, as is the fact that it wasn't an available option.

The postwar occupation and reconstruction (1945-1952) of Japan was nonviolent, done at great economic cost to the United States, and ended with our complete and voluntary withdrawal, leaving the Japanese to govern themselves. It also worked-- Japan has since been a model of economic prowess and relative pacifism. If you look at how wars ended up until that point in history, that postwar is about as nice as an attacked power is going to be to its attacker.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com