In reference to the A-bomb, Dwight Eisenhower once said, "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Was he right Controversy remains. What really should have been done? How many variables should have been considered? Which variables take precedence in time of war? It's hard to imagine a more resounding and utterly radical example of revenge than that of nuclear attack, and revenge did play a very large part. 911 anyone? Truman requested a panel to study the Pacific war, the study was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." If that study was true, it means that there was indeed a vast and unnecessary loss of life.
             On August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. On August 9th the U.S. dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. Japan quickly surrendered. (The Emperor was still retained) Approximately 140,000 people died by the end of December 1945. (Of Hiroshima's estimated population of 350,000) Because the A-bomb exploded close to the center of the city and because 85% of the buildings were within 3 km of the hypocenter, destruction to the city was nearly complete, with 90% of buildings collapsed or burned. (August 1946 Survey by the Hiroshima City Government) due to the heat rays, nearly everyone within 1.2 km who was directly exposed died instantly or within a few days. The blast generated a powerful shock wave. Thousands of people were killed or injured when they were hurled through the air or crushed under collapsed houses. Radiation caused many disorders for decades. Even today, more than
             ...