The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

Let's put this quote up here because I use it many times in this rebuttal and it isn't in this exact debate but in the first one. "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." -US War Department's US Strategic Bombing Survey I believe that the US Strategic Bombing Survey quote adresses your point about nearing the end of the war and the impatience towards the loss of lives as well as the long war. You mention that the US would not have known that Japan would have surrendered. The US intercepted a message from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to his Embassador to the USSR which said "the only obstacle to peace is unconditional surrender". The US was aproached by Japan and refused their offers of negotiation and pressured the USSR to do the same. You also make a very good point about Japan being one nation and it is absolutely correct. Most did support Japan totally. You then go on to use the example of the kamikaze　and the total support of the suicide attacks and say, "you cannot negotiate with them because they do not want to surrender." This is false. You have taken devotion to their nation and leader and said it is their rejection of surrender. That is in fact false. The Emperor Hirohito wanted to help his people and do what he thought was best for Japan. His actions were mislead and wrong but he did not completely disregard the lives of his own people. He did not want to let down his country by surrendering but he did not want a slaughter of all his people. It is a very complicated relationship between the emperor and his people and he did not want utter destruction contrary to what many people suggest. They feared the American actions following the war with no right to say anything. I believe he would surrender a powerful political position to do what is best for his country, his refusal of absolute surrender was proof that he cared for his people and did not wish for the country to be driven into the ground by the US. If the overall Japanese mentality was truly militant and as militant as you say the Japanese surrender would not have been so simple. Your extreme examples are beginning to frustrate me. First you talk about negotiation after little steps, this was not the case as the Strategic bombing survey showed. Then you use the example of warnings. Let's refrain from overly exagerated examples which are not the case. Adressing your first assertion about negotiations. If your example was the case I would agree with you but since it isn't, I don't. There were never negotiations with Japan nor did I ever say that negotiations should have begun as soon as the war begun. Japan at the time of the use of the A-bomb was ready to surrender. (refer to US War Department's Survey) A nation already in a very weakened state. Your second example of warnings is truly illogical. Never did I suggest warning exact populations of attacks but I did suggest a warning to the general population. Warn the Japanese and their leaders of the weapon and that the US will not hesitate to use the weapon. Never did I say we should give an opportunity for the city to evacuate. "First, just saying that the Japanese and Germans were different doesn't count as a valid point. You have to justify why they were different. And yes, they were different, but that doesn't mean that we should have taken a risk and trusted that Japan would not attack us again if we just let bygones be bygones." You were the one who stated that the reason that Japan could attack again after a surrender. I'll give one other reason then "they are different" and elaborate on that. The US would have learned from the mistakes concerning Germany by changing their post war actions and they were by releasing control of the country back to it's people slowly. The Japanese surrender was devastating to everyone and they would not let their pride tell them to retaliate. They understood their mistake after their surrender and in the modern world have become one of the US's closest partners in the world. Whether the surrender was conditional or not, I thinkt he results would have been very similar unlike the German inflamatory attitude which was a result of many combinations including economic strife, national mentality (revenge, anger and pride about their nation all creating an aggressive state) and a very talented leader who was good at rallying support but who had bad intentions (Hitler). I thinkt he burden of proof lies with the party which bombed the civilians not the civilians to prove they did not need to be bombed and I have yet to see what I believe is enough proof.