Underpowered rifles? More so than the 5.56 or .30 caliber carbine? The rifles were plenty powerful for the terrain and ranges at which most of the fighting took place. The rifles were probably the only thing that was not a severe impediment. OTOH Japanese heavy weapons [machine guns, mortars, etc.] and armor did suck compared to almost every western army. The Japanese army was essentially a mass infantry army with heavy weapons, artillery, and armor appended as an afterthought.

``I think the banzai bit with the sword was the only thing that reliably killed'' - Yeah, had themselves reliably killed.

Even Australians and the British veterans don't like it. Just recently British veterans turned their back on the Japanese emp. when he was in England.

I' waiting for someone to do an ACCURATE movie adaptation of the Bataan Death March. Far as I'm concerned, Clinton was way out of line for apoligizing for the 2 nukes..

The people that go on about how "terrible" the use of nukes were have very little concept of how WWII was being fought. Also considering the possible alternatives were invasion of Japan and end up fighting school kids with spears or blockading Japan and starving the islands into surrender.. which would have been oh so humane, meanwhile much of Asia would have been under Japanese control and the bulk of their army still in the field. The use of nuclear weapons probably turned out to be the best of the few possible ways to ending the war.

Agreed..

The Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the more humane option in my opinion. We all know that conservative estimates put the invasion of Japan at at least 1 million Allied casualties. They couldn't bomb Tokyo or Yokohama, they were already reduced to ruins, and they did not want to risk possible industrial capital in the reconstruction of Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively untouched, and thus presented the best targets to test the bombs. Without these weapons, Japan would NOT have surrendered - there was debate amongst the igh council, but the die hards still held sway - since Yamamote was killed, the most powerful voice of reason was absent from the Japanese decision makers. I'm actually moving to Japan next month, so I'll certainly visit those sites and learn as much from the 'other side' as I can. I'll hae to be careful though, the war is a taboo subject in public. Pucka

I agree about Hiroshima. An argument can be made, however, that Nagasaki was unnecessary. I don't know enough to make a decision about that.

I think Nagasaki was to tell the Japs to hurry up and surrender, and in part to show the world (i.e the Soviets) that it was not a one-off weapon. Pucka

I also agree the need for the second bomb was just as much to prove that we didn't have just a "one-shot wonder weapon." We proved we could do it more than once. And instead of risking any more major cities/industrial areas being erased from the map, it was decided surrender was the best option. And it also always amazes me that people who have a pisspoor military history knowledge always complain about the US using nukes, WITHOUT knowing just how bad things would have been if we hadn't. And also, those same anti-nuke people often forget the atrocities committed by the Imp Jap military in china and the rest of the Pacific..