Mr. Weiss, Regarding your first two questions.
“1. if the point of the bombs was to show japan that it was clearly and quickly over if we wanted it to be (b/c we have these super bombs now) then why couldn’t the bombs be either a) shown to the japs and demonstrated so as to scare the japs into surrender or if necessary b) dropped offshore to demonstrate the power of the bomb to the people directly but still minimizing casualties”
Even a superficial reading of the history of the war will convince you that the Japanese would not be “scared” into surrender.
“2. why was there only a 3 or four day gap between the first and second bombs? was 3 days really enough time to conclude that only another nuclear bomb could cause surrender? note that the actual surrender didn’t take place until 15 days after the second bomb-which is approximately three times the lag in between the bombs.”
The first bomb was the demonstration you asked for in question 1. It was followed by the dropping of leaflets describing the new weapon and that it would be used again. It didn’t work.
“but i agree that using the bomb to cause surrender was probably the best option.”
But they just didn’t do it right? I think you’re using an atomic hair splitter.
