It's also very cheap. That is also true when applied to the incendiary raids in Japan and to the firebombing and other bombing in Germany (and in England and in France and in other European cities, conducted by the Nazis). Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) cannot be honestly seen as extraordinary in this regard in any way. (anti-nuclear and anti-US psychosis notwithstanding)

There is no reason for horror. There is reason for appreciation of what these first generation bombs (which North Korea may now have and which Iran is seeking) can do and what others can do, all the way through the large megaton-class fusion bombs (which are inefficient blast-scale-wise but which are not only blast weapons but enormous heat weapons). There is the consideration of Pakistan and India and deliberately using such weapons not only on cities but on research reactors (breaching their containment structures).

Fortunately neither side in the Cold War saw the need to use their larger weapons.

However I would argue that “…the dropping of the bomb was a horrible thing, I am not arguing that at all” is indirectly what you are doing–the justification of doing so, and the scathing rebuttal of those who are quick to criticize that action, the “revisionists.” Your premise is there were no alternatives, that were not equally as bad.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I think the memory of the event should propel us to think about what we've learned since then, if not to re-hash the political and ethical considerations of judging the era for what they did. It's really difficult to predict how many would have died had the bombs not been dropped. There become more “ifs” that make it less accurate.

What I hope we can learn from it is that we began a whole new era of nuclear proliferation as a human species, and we didn't stop with the fission weapon, we created a fusion weapon that dwarfs the capabilities of the original bombs. We now how the capability to destroy humanity, everywhere.

Maybe, the horror of it really enables us to appreciate how devastating such a weapon truly can be, and maybe having used the bomb, in that way, is somehow a plus for humanity.

Personally I hope, as the anniversary comes and goes, we will be very free to apply our modern understandings, critiques, and ethical implications to those things of the past–however else will we learn, how will we avoid repeating the blunders of our past? Even if one doesn't think there were alternatives, clearly, in this day and age, there are and should be. When the next nuclear bomb is dropped, there likely will be no winners.

I would hope as the years go by that on that anniversary, we can come to a human understanding that indeed it was and is the wrong thing to do, under any circumstance.

What if a demonstration had been arranged and the demonstration failed?

The *** ONE *** alternative the author of this book said he wished had happened makes sense. If you recall, the world's largest conventional explosion was set up and conducted prior to testing the Trinity bomb (the implosion bomb that used plutonium; we didn't bother testing the gun-type weapon with uranium because it was simple, something Ihe more blind Iran-watchers need to bear in mind) in order to do a proper blast scaling “calibration.” You can probably find a photo of the results of this test and the results of Trinity next to it.

Here. Here is Trinity next to the 100 ton scaling test. Quite a difference in power.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinc...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Trinity...

The author said these results (the photograph[s]) and an explanation fo what caused them should have been sent and shown to the Japanese. They might, repeat might, have surrendered. There is no guarantee and the uncertainty lies on the side of Japan's continuing to fight (because of the militarists in the Japanese government, normally stronger than the pacifists). But this was one rational kind of alternative. We wouldn't even necessarily have had to say it was an atomic bomb, just a hugely powerful bomb.