I recall one of GW Bush's supporters once saying that "the only sure way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them".

NUCLEAR DISARMERS DENY HISTORICAL LESSONS

1. If Japan had its own nuclear weapons in 1945 the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have occured.

The possession of nuclear weapons give nations the ability to retaliate in a way too horrible for their enemies to consider first use.

2. Its foolish to believe that the increasing number of countries that are now building nuclear weapons will now consider disarmament.

3. It is the balanced possession of nuclear weapons between potential enemies that has prevented nuclear war since the 1940s.

4. Japanese suffered terribly when nuclear bombed in 1945 but most Japanese people and most Australian peace campaigners are unaware of the more frequent killing of civilians by the Japanese in World War Two.

Japanese war crimes have been rightly termed the Asian Holocaust.

By the late 1930s, the rise of militarism in Japan created some similarities between the wider Japanese military culture and that of Nazi Germany's elite military personnel, such as those in the Waffen-SS. Japan also had a military secret police force, known as the Kempeitai, which resembled the Nazi Gestapo in its role in annexed and occupied countries.

The historian Chalmers Johnson, a sincere critic of American imperialism, has written that:

"It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.”

Many more people worldwide die from conventional murder (in peace or war) every year than people nuclear bombed in Japan.

Pete

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good examples for using nuclear weapons not banning them. Those two bomb drops probably shortened the war by two years and a couple million Japanese and American dead. But that was 60 years ago. Just when was the last nuke used that would precipitate this article? The lesson of Hiroshima was that if you have a nuke use it. It has a very calming effect on a very belligerent and aggressive people intent on ruling the world. The rest is simple leftist pillow hugging. Freedom, justice, honour, liberty, these are not things that are given. They are things fought for, died for, and diligence and care are necessary in keeping them. And sometimes more life must be given trying to see others have such concepts of value to express in their lives.
There's no putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. And because nuclear weapons exist is not insurance that they'll be used. Way too many disparate nations have nuclear capabilities. The idea of M.A.D might not be past it's time. Not until we've used up the uranium for energy anyway. See ya around the reactor.

Which peace full God fearing nation dropped that bomb again?

Dear Shonga
I'll answer your question. The USA. And they only dropped two of them. Small ones at that. They didn't go the whole way and destroy the whole Japanese nation, in spite of the horrific things the Japanese did to Westerners and other Asians during the 2nd World War.
And don't forget in the process, they probably saved the lives of a couple of million Japanese and American soldiers.
The naivety of the left never ceases to amaze me - they think concepts like freedom and democracy are handed out like cheezels. No, they have to be fought for, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

What a silly thing to argue about. Sixty two years ago and still a big deal? Get over it people.

Recently Nth Korea and Iran have been playing with the nuclear fire. Saddam Hussein before them, and look where it got him and his unfortunate country. If you really think nuclear weapons are bad, it would be far more sensible to try to dissuade these various nutjob nations from threatening the US (and it's allies) with them. What would you advise a disturbed relative if he/she announced "I'm gonna get me a gun and take the coppers on"? would it be something like "yeah go for it. Those pigs are unrepresentative swill" or more like "I can see how you feel (in your crazy mixed-up state) but I really think discretion would be the better part of valour"?

The facts are pretty clear; don't mess with them and they won't mess with you. Live your life in peace and you will get peace in return. Cheers.