Perhaps I have to say it again, with nothing else around it, so you can comprehend it:

America has not once apologised for using nuclear weapons on innocent people.

I said nothing about whether Japan was planning to surrender. I said that the claim that Japan wouldn't have surrendered without the bomb is a lie. There are many other ways that they could have been brought to the point of surrendering without the wholesale murder of many innocent civilians.

If you're going to take a long series of detailed posts and boil it down to one dang line and use that to set up a strawman argument to score arbitrary points for your position then please, don't even bother posting.  As I pointed out in my other posts, the bombs were far less destructive to  the civilian and military infrastructure and population than Operation Downfall which was the only alternative that made any sense.  And while you keep banging your drum about the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you missed one of my main points completely:  those cities were vital cogs in the Japanese war machine and would have been destroyed anyway in the event of an invasion.  Most of the city would have parished from fire bomb and heavy ordinance attacks and the rest would have died during the invasion as a result of the JAPANESE government's Operation Ketsugo.  The only people that would have benefited from playing the Japanese military's game and just dragging out the conflict were the Japanese government and military command, war criminals on par with Hitler who were willing to send their civilians to die en masse to save their sorry skins.  The only other option to this absurd war of attrition was an armistice and agreeing to Japan's terms and that would have been the most morally reprehensible action we could have taken.

As for the bomb's effectiveness, it is documented that the fall of the second bomb definitely hastened their surrender.  In all but one of his speeches, Emperor Hirohito specifically mentioned the atomic bomb as a major factor in surrender, including his address to the people.  As much as revisionists want to bury the Japanese government and militaries brutality, coldness, and disregard for their own citizens so that they can white wash their history, playing themselves as the victims of an unfair attack, the documented facts remain.  Now, I'm done repeating myself.  Go actually read my posts and respond in kind.  As in with actual facts and argumentation.  

Bolded: Well said.

Apologies are just words. Actions are more important, and the building of strong relations in the present and future are an example of that.

I understood you perfectly. Did I deny that the US hasn't apologized in that post? Reread what I wrote and maybe you'll understand what I wrote

.....

...

..

.

Here's a hint in case you don't get my post.

I was disagreeing with your genius idea that one apology is all it will take. 

What does an apology from a man who had nothing to do with it gives them. I'd ask for a million dollars from US if I were them.

On top of the $1.9 billion that was poured into Japan during the post-war occupation to rebuild it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Japan#Postwar_period

Chuckle, not like a million dollars between these countries would matter anyway. For two of the top five GNP countries that amount is chump change.

This !

Everyone who says that an attack on a military base (druing a word war) is the same as a drop of a nuclear bomb on an civilian city is not normal imo.

We were not at war.  In fact, their message that arrived late wasn't even a declaration of war, just a message saying negotiations were ending. 

And it's not like the US attacked fishing villages with these nukes.  Hiroshima was the military command center for all of southern Japan and had a garrison of 40,000 troops.  Nagasaki was a major industrial center and key for the production of munitions, weapons, and warships.  It also housed a large munitions depot Both were high value military targets and would have been bombed with or without the use of nukes, likely to the same level of destruction.  There were precision weapons, no smart bombs or cruise missiles.  As pointed out by the military advisors of the time, a large scale bombing run like had been done to other cities in Japan could have yielded similar results.  So whether by a nuke or by a large scale heavy ordinance and fire bombing run, the cities would have been destroyed.  In fact, Nagasaki might have received even more damage as the nuclear blast was contained within a valley, something that wouldn't have happened in a large scale bombing run. 

However, it is pointless to compare the two, they are different acts.  However, one was a blindsiding act of aggression, the other a calculated act to end a war.  The former is a definite, clear violiation of the rules of war *of that time.*  The latter was not. 

I have no desire to apologise and think we should use those weapons again if we deem it needed. I have read nothing in my lifetime that makes me think using those weapons in that war was incorrect. I am unsure that a similar situation will ever occur again in fact I sort of doubt it. It seems to me that it was a very unique point in history but things change you never know.