There where 3 days between the two bombs.

Not really enough time for a government to assess what had happened and make a decision to surrender.

Part of the reason there where two bombs was to test the two different types. One plutonium and one uranium and also two different configurations of warhead.

>I'm arriving on the tail end of this thread. Nevertheless, I have a few points to make.
>
>First. Re the atom bombs dropped on Japan. There is good evidence that the Germans and the Japanese were individually working on atomic weapons. The Russians had stolen information on atomic weapons from the Americans too. The use of the first bomb was not sent as a surprise. The Japanese were pre-warned and asked to surrender. They did not. After the first detonation, the Japanese thinking was that the technology to make such a weapon was very complex and because of that, the probablility that ther Americans had other bombs was non-existent. So, the Japanese army chose to continue the fight even though they were once again warned of what would happen.
>
>Second re:Iran - When Adolph Aminadinnerjacket spoke at the UN almost the entire audience got up and vacated the room. Very few countries were left to listen to his ramblings. From that we know that the United States of America is not seen as a pack of war mongering lunatics.
>
>Third - 9-11 was an act of war. Al Qaeda has been paying for their atocious act(s) of stupidity for ten years. If the middle east, particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan, wants the USA to go home all they have to do is cough up Bin Laden, his Egyptian second in command and Moolah Omar.
>
>Finally - The goal of Al Qaeda is to bankrupt the USA. So, it might be time to vote in someone who knows how to handle money before Obama wins the war for Al Qaeda.
>
>
>I find it rather difficult to justify killing 120,000+ civilians - although I admit that it DID end the war with Japan.
>>
>>I agree - it is difficult. It sucks. I'm a dad now. And believe me, there are days when I look at my daughter and realize there are innocent children in countries that want to attack the United States. But I also know that if my country DOESN'T take the necessary responses, it could be my family perishing at the hands of our enemies.
>>
>>So sometimes it is unavoidable. When A initiates force against B, leaving B with little choice but to fight back in a way that will harm A's innocent bystanders (or even make B look ugly) , it is ultimately A that is accountable.
>>
>>it is no different than the actions of the Brits - Nick Mason basically proved my point - surely many innocent German children died when the British bombed Mannheim in response to the attack on Coventry. Where's the moral outrage there?????? It's hypocrisy to condemn the United States for taking action in response to attacks, unless one also denounces all responses where innocent people lose their lives.
>>
>>Yes, dropping 2 on Japan ended the war with them. It also prevented the deaths of more American soldiers. It also sended a message, it at least for a period of time, that the United States was not a country to mess with.
>>
>>Sadly, we've done almost a 180 - men like Ahmadinejad try to depict the U.S. as war-mongering lunatics, but the truth is that he thinks of us as a sunset power, too weak and too cowardly to resist his bloodthirsty Muslim fanatics. Every time our leaders hesitate and bicker amongst ourselves of becoming the war-mongers we're portrayed as, we reinforce our enemy's true perceptions.