Oh, well if you don’t like how silly your positions are, whose fault is that? Well, you think more than that if your previous posts are to be believed. You have written on multiple occasions the US deliberately prolonged the war just so they could detonate nuclear devices on Japanese cities and kill children. And you made that claim as recently as your last post. And has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions with transcripts of the actual documents and fliers dropped on Japan, the US did warn Japan. Those fliers weren’t dropped on Japan by rouge officers. Those fliers warning the population and urging surrender were dropped on Japan because the US military command ordered it. You have repeatedly made the assertion that the US extended the war in order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, where is the evidence? You have never been able to support your beliefs and claims. There was debate by US leaders with respect to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan and there was disagreement. But debate and disagreement doesn’t make for a secret cabal, nor does it make for the murderous intent you ascribe to US leaders for using nuclear weapons. Whereas you see nefarious cabals in debate and disagreement, I see that as a sign of thoughtful and good intentions. It is clear; the US didn’t take the use of nuclear weapons lightly. Great thought went into the decision to use them. That is why there were discussions. That is why there was disagreement. Pre previously referenced materials; the US had a decision, use the bomb to end the war early and in doing so save millions of lives both military and civilian. The US chose to US nuclear bombs to end the war early and in doing so save millions of lives. Unfortunately for you, your beliefs are just not consistent with known facts. Japan didn’t surrender easily. Even with the nuclear detonations, Japan wasn’t ready to surrender. As previously pointed out and documented Japan still had a 2 million man army on Japanese homelands islands, and still had possession of China and Korea. Japan was far from milk toast, as you would have us believe, when nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan. LOL…let me remind you, you asserted the US had not offered terms of surrender to Japan when in fact, it along with its allies, had offered surrender terms to Japan. As previously documented, it was called the Potsdam Declaration. Just because the Potsdam Declaration isn’t consistent with your beliefs, it doesn’t wish away the Potsdam Declaration. I previously posted the terms of Japan’s surrender which were declared in the Potsdam Declaration. What you are arguing for is an extension of the war with prolonged negotiations. Prolonging the war would have extended the bloodshed with no guarantee of a better outcome or even prospect of a better outcome. Need I remind you of the war crimes committed by the Japanese government (e.g. The Rape of Nanking). I’ll repeat myself for your edification, below is an excerpt from my previous Wikipedia reference. Japanese reaction On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points." The next day, Japanese newspapers reported that the Declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped by leaflet into Japan, had been rejected. In an attempt to manage public perception, Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated: I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war. The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which rather accurately described the range of reactions within the government. On July 30, Ambassador Satō wrote that Stalin was probably talking to Roosevelt and Churchill about his dealings with Japan, and he wrote: "There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia's participation in the war." On August 2, Tōgō wrote to Satō: "it should not be difficult for you to realize that ... our time to proceed with arrangements of ending the war before the enemy lands on the Japanese mainland is limited, on the other hand it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once." – Wikipedia Your response is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. Except they were warned, as previously documented, now they were given detailed plans. But why should they, this was war. You don’t detail your plans to the enemy and then send you men into battle to only be summarily executed because you warned the enemy you were coming. You have been repeatedly challenged to prove your assertions that the Japanese command wasn’t aware of that a major military site had disappeared until days after the fact. But you have yet to offer any evidence to back up that assertion. Yeah, I mean where is the evidence to support your assertions that the US delayed the war in order to drop bombs on Japanese, “We have his guaranteeing a six month war extension to ready a fancier Bomb design through deception and secrecy, keeping the Bomb a secret from its civilian targets rather than warning them, refusing to meet with Japanese envoys or permit any other possibility of negotiated surrender in the months of Bomb readying, firebombing Tokyo and other major Japanese cities while getting the Bomb ready, rushing the Nagasaki bombing rather than giving the Japanese time to comprehend Hiroshima, and so forth and so on. How much evidence of a more complicated agenda than merely "saving lives" or "ending the war" do you need?” – Iceaura. I thought my challenge was pretty clear.