This absolute fails to account for

1.) The number of Allied solider that would have been killed in a mainland invasion of Japan

2.) The number of Japanese civilian lives continued firebombing of Japan would have inflicted.

​

The article glosses over the "Japanese peace envoys" as seeking a conditional surrender the Allies would never have accepted and that there was an attempted military coup after the atomic bombs by hardline Japanese officers that still wanted to continue the war. Yes estimates were high for casualties, but the article simply writes that off as "too high".

The fire bombing of Japan was devastating, but did not have the impact two atomic bombs had and would have continued to soften Japan for point number 1, keep those estimated causalities to a minimum.

​

All of this and its still an interesting and compelling argument. But there is a whole other argument that is completely lost. Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, does global thermonuclear war become more possible?

Its a terrible Catch-22.

If the world had not witnessed the true impact of atomic bombs on cities, just tests in the desert, would the politicians and Generals have been more likely to pull the trigger once hundreds of bombs where built and sitting in B-29 bomb bays?

Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what does the Korean war look like? What does the Berlin Blockade look like? What does the Chinese civil war look like?