Agree it makes total sense American leaders would like the war to end without invasion. And that they would hope the dropping of abombs (as well as hoping it might deter deter Stalin) would achieve that end. Still, if Ward Wilson's, and others', work is of worth, seems the fact remains that after Nagasaki Japanese leaders were still not into surrender. If there is any real value in going back there, that seems to me an important fact. If in fact it is a fact. On other suggesting that view:
Hiroshima atomic bombing did not lead to Japanese surrender, historians argue nearing 70th anniversary
By North Asia correspondent Matthew Carney Posted Wed 5 Aug 2015 at 8:32am, updated Wed 5 Aug 2015 at 10:27am
[...]
Many historians say the bombings did not lead to the Japanese surrender, and the Soviet declaration of war on Japan two days later was a bigger shock.
It put an end to any hope the Soviets would negotiate a favourable surrender for Japan.
The severely-weakened Japanese Imperial army had no capacity to fight the Soviets on a second front in China and Northern Japan.
Japanese historian Yuki Tanaka said the country had no choice because the Soviets would have killed Emperor Hirohito, seen as the heart and soul of imperial Japan.
"The Soviet Union would demolish the emperor system and they would execute the emperor as well as all members of the royal family," he said.
New bomb not responsible for Japan's surrender
America believed the shock and awe of the devastating power of the new bombs would force Japan into surrender, but experts say inside Japan it was viewed differently.
The Americans had already destroyed 66 Japanese cities with a massive fire bombing campaign.
In just one night, 100,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo.
Tokyo's Temple University director of Asian Studies Jeffery Kingston said the new bombs would not have had the impact the Americans would have hoped.
"If you look at it from the perspective of the Japanese military, it doesn't really make a big difference whether people are dying from fire bombing or atomic bombs ... it is [just] two additional city centres that are destroyed," he said.
The atomic bombings probably did play a part in averting a bloody ground invasion and saving thousands of US lives, but historians like Dr Kinston said the bombs were also about sending a message to the Soviets.
"We have this incredible new weapon, we have a monopoly on it and we are going to emerge as the strongest superpower. In a sense, this was the opening salvo of the Cold War," he said.
The crew of the B-29 bomber Enola Gay navigator Major Theodore Van Kirk (L), pilot Colonel Paul Tibbets and bombardier Major Thomas Ferebee after dropping the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.(AFP: US Air Force)
hap0206, scumbag. Again you ignore the fact Japan were not ready to surrender after the two A-bombs. Not until Stalin invaded. hap0206, scumbag -- The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did. [...] Finally, one other fact about timing creates a striking problem. On Aug. 8, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori went to Premier Suzuki Kantaro and asked that the Supreme Council be convened to discuss the bombing of Hiroshima, but its members declined. So the crisis didn’t grow day by day until it finally burst into full bloom on Aug. 9. Any explanation of the actions of Japan’s leaders that relies on the “shock” of the bombing of Hiroshima has to account for the fact that they considered a meeting to discuss the bombing on Aug. 8, made a judgment that it was too unimportant, and then suddenly decided to meet to discuss surrender the very next day. Either they succumbed to some sort of group schizophrenia, or some other event was the real motivation to discuss surrender. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173423896 To keep that paragraph outed, here - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173429852
And, just because i asked the question i suggested we should ask more, a couple more:
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
