[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
While there are several good arguments for dropping the first bomb, can anybody come up with one single decent argument for the second.

There is only one argument that needs to be given for the second bombing. The war was not over. Japan had not surendered, even after the first bombing. All of the theories, opinions, and estimates about what the Japanese were planning to do or might do are just that, theories, opinions and estimates. The only thing that we knew for sure, and the only thing we know now for sure is that as of the time of the bombing of Nagasaki, they had not surendered.

Perhaps a case can be made that neither bombing was acceptable, that both were inhumane. That's an argument I won't attempt to make on either side because I have not truly decided for myself. But if you accept the first bombing, as you seem to do from your statement, then you must accept the second bombing as well. As we would have to accept every subsequent bombing after the first two if they had not surendered when they did.

Geoschmo