It is over six decades since the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future.
             One of the main reasons why people have supported the dropping of the nuclear bombs is due to military strategy. Throughout the war, the Japanese had demonstrated zealous, even suicidal, resistance. Even the fire bombing of Tokyo that had killed 100,000 people did not have any political effect. Many believed that only something as devastating as the atomic bomb would be able to make Japan surrender. Similarly, these supporters say that an invasion of Japan by traditional military methods would have caused more deaths than those from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs also curtailed any further action from other countries that were considering such a military move, such as the Soviet Union.
             Those who have opposed dropping the bombs instead believe that Japan was ready to surrender, despite its earlier commitment, and that the bombing was an "over kill." Airplane bombers had already destroyed over 60 Japanese cities, the U.S. Navy had erected a blockade of the major islands, and the Soviet Union was attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. Japan's resistance could not have lasted much longer. They feel a demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to surrender without killing so many people. Further, even if Hiroshima had to be bo...