70 years ago USA dropped nuclear bomb on Hiroshima in Japan.

Around 80 000 people died immediately, most of them - civilian. 

End of 1945 dead count increased to more then 100 000, because people was dying of radiation. 

9th of August USA dropped second bomb to Nagasaki. 60-80 thousand people were killed. 

What do you think about it now? Do Japanese remember that their USA 'friends' did to them? What Americans think about it today, was it necessary?
Also was this nuclear bombings any better/worse then USA bombing of Tokyo (10th of March 1945, more then 100 000 casualties), Hamburg (1943, more then 45 000), Drezden (Feb 1945, estimated deaths varies from 25 to 100 thousands) with 'usual' bombs?

In war you generally have a series of bad choices because people will die due to them. I take no pride that World War II saw massive civilian death, but I understand how a conventional invasion could have lasted years and cost several times the same number of lives. I don't envy those that made the choice.

World War II had many atrocities, the Japanese weren't immune to committing them as many Chinese will tell you. We can bear old grudges for what happen or elect to move on, which I'd argue has been good for Japan and the United States.

Bombing a city either way as you point out leads to death on a massive scale. Coventry and Dresden being famous examples. If you want to point to a good consequence of Hiroshima is that the Soviet Union and United States seeing the awesome destructive power realized that another war would be mutual annihilation. Since World War II we have witnessed a scaling back of major nation states engaging in war being replaced by commerce. Shame we had to learn such a brutal lesson through millions of deaths including whole cities wiped out in a day, but seems only thing prevent us from engaging in such madness is to raise the stakes that high. At least, for 70 years we have.

It was mostly noteworthy in terms of the technological achievement and scary precedent that was being set. In terms of the number of deaths, I guess it's generally considered worse when they're non-military targets, but I'm not sure how much that applies during total war. The number of deaths was significantly lower than some of the battles in WW2 and that should probably be kept in mind. That said, it was ridiculous that they planned to drop more than 1. 1 would've been enough to make people surrender.

R.I.P to all the innocent people who died in hiroshima and to whom are suffering the pains

I think if you are going to war you have to kill everyone and war should not be an option to excuse bully foreign policy. The nuke was nessecary to win without further sacrifice. But the whole thing could have been avoided if Western Money (Bankers) simply didn't dick with them for a hundred years prior. The death toll in Irag is 500,000 so we have learned nothing.

I feel for the familes who had loved ones die in the bombing.

It kind of did save further bloodshed with the end of fighting.

Reservations about the long term consequences of a nuke though, but would normal bombing had had the same impact? I don't think so.

I would have dropped three. Just to be sure.

Moderated by - PwerlvlAmy

First, I am sorry that thousands of innocent people died. The same applies to all comparable incidents, especially those caused by human violence.

Was it justifiable? I think it probably was. There are those who argue that a Japanese surrender was imminent, but to my knowledge, the intimidation tactics of Little Boy and Fat Man brought far less deaths than the invasion of Japan would have. If I remember correctly, the working assumption was that over 10 million Japanese would die in a country with under 75 million people total. Not to mention that Japan would have received a lot more damage to its infrastructure, making recovery far more difficult, and would likely have been partially conquered by the Soviet Union, much like East Germany.

A big recurring argument I've heard about atomic bombs is that unlike more conventional bombs, they harm people for years to come due to their radioactive effects. However, I don't think this was unique to atomic bombs. Land mines are less dramatic than nukes, but there are millions of those around the world left over from as early as 1914, which are still completely lethal.

I don't want any of this activity to happen, but this was not particularly reprehensible, at least to my knowledge.

So US Government is a real treat to the world more then the terrorist?