Thank you, Basra. As always, the sweetest girl here on Somalinet.
You're welcome, Grant. I'm agree with you about Hitler, mate.
I have to disagree about the use of Little Boy and Fat Man against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think both bombs-along with the bombing of Guernica by the nazis in Spain in 1937- were the first terrorist attacks with weapons of massive destruction in the 20th century.
I know that thousands and thousands of Americans still believe -included Paul Tibbets- that the atomic bombs ended the war, but don't forget that Germany, by that time, was defeated and Japan was isolated and about to surrender. It's true that the occupation of Japan would have a great cost in human lives, because the Japaneses were ready to fight street by street and house by house, but... it was really necessary to occupy Japan? In my opinion, a peace treat would have been enough. Wars can end with a peace treat without the need of occupying the defeated country.
The use of the atomic bombs, in my opinion, hadn't the aim to end the war but to show other powers (URSS, China, etc) the ability of the United States to use the atomic bomb. Moreover, knowing the human condition, we all know that if we have a new 'toy', sooner or later we'll use it in order to test it. Just imagine a ten months old baby with a stone in his hand: he'll end throwing it against a window to 'see what happens'. The American Army wanted to know what happens when you throw an atomic bomb against a city full of civilians. They knew the consequences before throwing it, but they needed to see it in real life.
I would add, even, that they could throw Little Boy against Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was unnecessary. It was the need to test both kind of bombs. For me, the most aggresive and storming terrorist attacks in the 20th century. The revenge of Truman for what happened in Pearl Harbour.