Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

reply to post by Daedalus3

On August 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber named the Enola Gay left the island of Tinian for Hiroshima, Japan. The uranium 235 gun-type bomb, named Little Boy, exploded at 8:16 a.m. In an instant 80,000 to 140,000 people were killed and 100,000 more were seriously injured.

On August 9, 1945, another American B-29 bomber, Bock's Car, left Tinian carrying Fat Man, a plutonium implosion-type bomb. The primary target was the Kokura Arsenal, but upon reaching the target, they found that it was covered by a heavy ground haze and smoke and were unable drop the bomb. The pilot, Major Charles Sweeney, turned to the secondary target of the Mitsubishi Torpedo Plant at Nagasaki. The bomb exploded at 11:02 a.m. over the narrow Urakami Valley northwest of downtown Nagasaki. Of the 286,000 people living in Nagasaki at the time of the blast, 74,000 people were killed and another 75,000 sustained severe injuries.

www.hiroshima-remembered.com...

There are certain lines one should never cross.

When America dropped two atomic weapons upon two cities, we opened a Pandora's box for humanity.

And baby, karma is a real witch. What goes around comes around.

On a personal note: A dear friend of mine lost both sets of grandparents. One set lived in Hiroshima and the other in Nagasaki on those two fateful days.

Many people say it ended WWII faster and in the long run saved more lives.

From what I read, the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering.

No, in my opinion - these were WMD and America used it twice.

Again, some lines are left better not crossed. Once you open a door you better be able to shut it and this door is now open.

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. Albert Einstein

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. Albert Einstein

[edit on 17-5-2010 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by Daedalus3

Not mine. though popular opinion does mostly end up being the right one.. and it does seem to be a popular opinion..

That statement right there proves the true agenda of this thread.

Ah there we go.. and so it was necessary for the 2nd Gulf war in order to end the suffering of these children.. provide them food and shelter? Were aid agencies able to do that?

How long would your blackade of Japan last and what would be an acceptable level of starvation to induce surrender. No, I think history shows that blockades and sanctions very rarely work.

The Soviets didn't invade Japan because of the bomb. They did so because they committed to doing so in the Potsdam declaration. They had to re-purpose and arm half a million men in Manchuria.. Such mobilization takes time. They had committed to doing so in the month of August in that very declaration.

Why did the Soviets wait until August 9th to declare war on Japan, why not way back on May 9th aftter the defeat of Germany. Maybe if the Soviets declare war in May or June there is no need to drop any bomb at all. All of the Allies concluded that only Unconditional Surrender would do, not just the US. The Soviets invaded Manchuria so they could grab some territory before Japan surrendered nothingmore and nothing less.

Political leaders make decissions with the information availiable to them at the time hind sight is always 20/20.



[edit on 5/17/2010 by DarkStormCrow]

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Daedalus3

 

We now know the level of destruction and suffering that results from using atomic weapons.
We can actually visualise the effects of far more powerful weapons simply because we have seen the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
It has been the ultimate deterrent.

And the ultimate seduction to pursue and wield such power. Nuclear programs 'mushroomed' across the face of this earth as a result of that act.

Nonetheless, the effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not demonstrate (to me) the power of the nuclear bomb. The numerous detonations with yields thousand-fold that followed in the decades to come demonstrate that to me.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate to me, the human ability to try something so horrifying with a reasonable knowledge of the impact, by a nation that essentially had the highest moral ground on the planet at that point in time.

Its a collective failure with respect to the entire species not just 'America'.. I mean.. this thread reeks of denial and guilty conscience..But get over the America complex people..Both for and against this country.. its not about why 'America' dropped the bomb..Its about why humanity in its apparent moral and intellectual best decided to do so.. And why we as a species keep telling ourselves that it was ok.. and thus give us moral flexibility to say 'it can be ok in the future as long as the situation (a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki) demands it'.

And I would like to know of an example where merely 'demonstrating' a weapon has proved such aneffective deterrent.

1) A few dozen bombs with yields in mere tens of kilotons (the bombs you award this honor to) do not constitute a MAD-based nuclear deterrent today.. Stockpiles in the 1000s and yields in the megatons do that.

2) cruise missiles, nuclear powered submarines, stealth weaponry etc etc. .. all prove as deterrents even though they have never been used intentionally on 'soft' targets and yet they hold great deterrence value..

The very purpose of a 'terrible' weapon is to show that it can have devastating results against the best defences.. not to use it on soft targets..

Infact I feel the Japanese (military) didn't give much value to the first bomb because they never really saw its effects firsthand (against military targets), and were perhaps confused by what effect it could have on hardened military installations. What caught their attention was the push by half a million soviet men into Manchuria..An attack on military assets with undeniable and tangible military losses..

In fact, the only existing instances of attacking civilians targets to prove a point (justified to an unfortunately sizable section of society by apparent crimes committed against them by their target) seem to be terrorist attacks on high emotional value civilian/soft targets..
Not justifiable.. In fact I believe 9/11 caused a drastic drop in support for Anti-Americanism in a world that was rich in that sentiment, until the 2nd Iraq war changed all that back again.

I may not have been alive during the time but I'll be damned if "you weren't there" is a worthy excuse.

The dropping of those two infamous WMDs was and is completely unacceptable. It is an act of terrorism worse than any the world has ever known. By their standards, terrorist acts such as 9/11 are completely warranted and excusable (let's not turn this into a 9/11 truth thread).

A majority of those killed were women, children and the elderly. If we were unwilling to lose the troops necessary in taking the island, then we should not have invaded. Many historians and top tier government and military officials of the time have gone on record as believing Japan was prepared to surrender without the use of further force.

Even if Japan was not prepared to surrender, the ethical and morally upright thing to do would have been to surround the island (which he had) and blockade it from any trade and/or military movement.

Thousands of lives were extinguished for the simple fact they were Japanese...unforgivable and unexcusable in my mind.

*edit*

before you heroic keyboard hard-ons decide to attack me for a lack of a spine, I've put in my share of work and then some for this country. My blood, sweat and tears can be found on many foreign fields of battle, and I would gladly die taking an objective rather than extinguish cities full of civilians.

The Soviet Union agreed to nothing in the Potsdam Declaration which dealt with the Surrender Terms for Japan.

Potsdam Declaration

I think you are confusing this with the Potsdam Agreement which dealt exclusively with Germany and Territory changes in Europe.

Potsdam Agreement

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
That statement right there proves the true agenda of this thread.

Maybe a possible agenda of this thread is to throw light on the real reasons for Anti-Americanism.. responses, posts, replies and attitudes that provoke dissent and hatred..

My agenda is to understand why the bombs were dropped and why alternatives were not examined BEFORE resorting to using maximum force against minimum resistance..

How long would your blockade of Japan last and what would be an acceptable level of starvation to induce surrender. No, I think history shows that blockades and sanctions very rarely work.

Ok. So some real healthy discussion. Thank you for even considering this..
How about 5 years? Boosted by assassination attempts on the hardliners, funding for any resistance/counter-coup, propaganda and education of the public (it seems they were most oblivious to the atrocities of the Japanese army)
A conditional surrender was reported to be positively received by Japan. In fact other than removal of the monarchy, every other clause I believe would have been acceptable to the ruling body.

Why did the Soviets wait until August 9th to declare war on Japan, why not way back on May 9th aftter the defeat of Germany.

If you'd notice the dates you mention have 3 months (exactly) in between them. The Yalta conference allowed the Soviets to invade Japan up to or within 90 days the defeat of Germany.

Why didn't the declare war in that period?Because they needed to prepare for a crushing blow and not a war of attrition/stalemates. Nevertheless, they didn't need to because they didn't sign up to do so. No deception there.

Why did the US agree to this timeline and then drop the bomb a mere 4 days before the expiration of this commitment? Because they always intended to do so?

The Soviets invaded Manchuria so they could grab some territory before Japan surrendered nothingmore and nothing less.

The Soviets grabbed as much territory as they were supposed to as agreed upon by the Allied powers in treaties/conferences, nothing more. Im not making them out to be the good guys here.. they committed atrocities against their people.. but they did what they signed onto.
Political leaders make decissions with the information availiable to them at the time hind sight is always 20/20.

Maybe if the Soviets declare war in May or June there is no need to drop any bomb at all.

Now we're talking. What if the US had waited for the soviet commitment to expire.. 90 days from Day of Defeat? Interesting how you leave out July though.. Any reasons?

All of the Allies concluded that only Unconditional Surrender would do, not just the US.

Yes. And perhaps gauging the Japanese political situation would have helped devise a better option.
Also the interpretation of 'Mokusatsu' as a response creeps me out..Murphys law

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


You are right.. its the Tehran and Yalta conference..
My bad..

reply to post by Shark VA84


Respect..

~From people in other countries that still believe in America and what it can stand for..

May, June, July anytime after the defeat of Germany or how about 1941, 1942, 1943, or 1944 while the Americans, British, and the Commonwealth Nations were sending them megatons of lend lease, providing all the cloth for thier uniforms, leather for thier boots and other equipment, all of thier aviation fuel, raw materials for building thier tanks and airplanes. over 500,00 trucks and virtually all of thier rail and locomotive stock and enough SPAM that they were still selling it their markets into the 70s.

I have been in war, it sucks,that being said studying war is a hobby of mine. Would I have prefered that the Japanese surrender before the bombs were dropped, yes of course, I would also have prefered that Japan not embarq on their campaign of conquest from 1933-1945. I would prefer many things in history and warfare be different.

reply to post by Daedalus3


right back at you brother (or sister).

hindsight is 20/20, but nothing is more valuable than the life and the soul of a human being, at least not in this world.

I'm looking forward to the day when we no longer hold expectations for countries and their inhabitants, but where we only hold expectations for individuals, as that is what we all are. Historians, the media, a majority of the world likes to stereotype and generalize, as it is in our nature, but this system of identification no longer holds up.

Here is an idea, put yourself in the shoes of a commander at the time of World War II, fighting the empire of Japan. Your best intelligence states that the Emperor of Japan is considered a living god, his word is law. Beyond that, there is not much on the current situation of what is going on in Japan, beyond rumors and what limited intelligence you have, to include a general population number. You have seen where a country went in a few years, from a feudal style system to that of an industrial complex, putting out superior weapons. They have violated treaties and have been acting agressively towards their neighbors. Before World War II, during the Russian/Japanese war, you saw where they launched a sneak attack against the Russian Navy, doing massive damage to their pacific fleet and it ended up with the Japanese having a foothold on mainland China. You hear then reports of the agressive and ruthlessness of the Japanese army. Then they attack your piece of land, doing the same devestating attack, without provication of war, or a declaration of such. Now in the course of having to fight with convential weapons, it is noticed that they do not give up, they are going off of the philosopy of Honor or Death, fighting to the very last man. You reclaim territory that was taken by the Japanese empire only to learn of the propoganda used against the civilian populations, to include that the belief that they put out is that the American soldiers would kill every man, woman and child. And every new battle gets worse and bloodier every step of the way as you progess towards the main Japanese homeland. It is very obvious that all media is controled, and many of the civillians are told what they are to believe, and picking up of those phamplets dropped by the American planes is punishible by imprisonment. Those who would speak out against the war would be imprisoned or put to death. So now you have what the mind set is, that if you invade the battle would result in mass causalities, all based on the past way the Japanese fought on every island they held and the naval battles, you would have causalties in the millions on both sides. Also if you take into fact, we did not trust the Soviet Union or Stalin. You do not want him to have a foothold on the Island of Japan, and you need to end the war quickly, before the Soviets can launch an attack against the Japanese, seeing how the Soviets are taking control over eastern Europe. So what do you do, mind you that your best esitmate and intelligence states that to do a land invasion of the island of Japan, you will end up fighting the population, and every man, woman and child, and if and when the Soviet Union gets involved, if they land on the Island of Japan, you may loose another country to a political rival. How would you end the war to where it punishes an agressive country for starting it and prevent it from falling to the influence of a government like the Soviet Union?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


So how many dead women and children are you willing to accept to deter one possibility out of millions?

10?
100?
100,000?
100,000,000?

There is NO EXCUSE in my mind. They wanted a quick end to conflict and they got it, but at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives and their own souls in my opinion.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
May, June, July anytime after the defeat of Germany or how about 1941, 1942, 1943, or 1944 while the Americans, British, and the Commonwealth Nations were sending them megatons of lend lease, providing all the cloth for thier uniforms, leather for thier boots and other equipment, all of thier aviation fuel, raw materials for building thier tanks and airplanes. over 500,00 trucks and virtually all of thier rail and locomotive stock and enough SPAM that they were still selling it their markets into the 70s.

Actually the Soviets did more for the invaded Chinese than all other Allied Nations until Pearl Harbor. They had a neutrality pact and had a invasion on the western front that would have resulted occupation if Stalingrad had gone the other way in 1942-43. 44 saw a phase of recovery.
Infact Soviets committed to invading Japan (after the defeat of Germany) way back in late 43': Tehran Conference.

I have been in war, it sucks,that being said studying war is a hobby of mine. Would I have prefered that the Japanese surrender before the bombs were dropped, yes of course, I would also have prefered that Japan not embark on their campaign of conquest from 1933-1945. I would prefer many things in history and warfare be different.

I whole heartedly agree.. In fact I wonder how long the US may have sat out if the Japanese had culled their invasion plans to restrict supply and fuel lines that did not require a greater Pacific reach (i.e. attacking america)

Well considereing most European Americans at the time were actually of German ancestry I can see the United States sitting out the whole war if not attacked. Roosevelt really wanted a war against the Germans the fact that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was gift.

The Soviets were supplying Mao and the Americans we supplying Chaing, I think had the Soviets declared war earlier even say in 1943, it would have made the Island hopping campaign much easier on the United States.
Much is made of the United States coming late to the war, even so The US suffered almost as many casualties as the UK in half the time, and the logistics of fighting a 2 front war across 2 oceans are just mind boggling, not to mention supplying the Chinese, The Soviets, The Free French, The United Kingdom for a time and others, El Alamein was made possible by Grant and Lee tanks supplied to the UK, and without American food and trucks the Soviet army marches on foot to Berlin on empty stomachs.

Keep in mind the US had a much smaller population at the time approximately 140 million and the nation was still very much an agrarian society for the most part, most folks had hardly had an education past the 8th grade. The US was a very different place than today.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by DarkStormCrow]

[edit on 5/17/2010 by DarkStormCrow]

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


I have a very naive question about the comments contained here. DarkStrormCrow appears to be well versed in the history of warfare. Perhaps he can enlighten us more given his interest in the subject.

Where is it written throughout the history of human civilization that women and children, cities and villages, entire populations are to be safe from WAR? Is it not the whole point to destroy your enemy? In the past women and children were killed to prevent the possibility of future revenge by the losing party.

At some point, "civilized" nations decided that WAR should be sanitized and only be conducted by "enemy combatants". But if the community of nations keep WAR sanitized don't you make it more viable as an option for settling disputes? Shouldn't WAR be horrible so that it is NOT considered a viable option. Is not terrorism representative of the old school? That is, suffer the noncombatants to change foreign policy?

I really don't understand the idea that WAR should be sanitized. Such an approach flies in the face of thousands of years of human history and human preference/weakness. Such a naive view just begs for terrorism and unconventional warfare.

Furthermore, the whole concept of "sanitized"warfare seems to be a moral/ethical construct that favors countries with large standing armies and high GDP. How could a poor country like North Korea possibly defend itself from economic or political tyranny by using conventional weapons? They could not (although they have tried through the growth of a large armed force). All nations without large standing armies and high GDP are at the mercy of the large economic powers. Those mice who wish to oppose the policies of world leaders and banks must do so through unconventional means, which implies civilian casualties.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by Jrags]

Hi,

Originally posted by OldDragger
Japan was DEFEATED long before the wars end. The problem was they refused to surrender, even when they knew the could not win!!
The insane attitude of Imperial Japan, and the unbelievably cruel suffering, death and destruction they caused came back to the home islands in a big way.

Same really goes for Nazi Germany; if a western country that were very recently considered to be quite democratic and modern can descend into such depths of state organized depravity and fanatical resistance in defense of the 'fatherland' i am hard pressed to find fault with even the high end casualty estimates for a invasion of Japan. Thing is the Soviet union could have and would have done it at whatever cost ( Stalin cared even less for his 'own' than Hitler did; which is saying much) and there were never any serious reason for a American invasion other than geopolitical.

If the US wanted Japan to surrender to them all they had to do was accept the terms that they eventually did BEFORE they dropped the bombs. The 'unconditional' surrender concept should be alien to democratic nations when they will negotiate everything else ( universal health care?) and yet that was essentially required of Japan BEFORE the bombing but not after. That illustrates in my mind at least that the Japanese feared Stalin and found terms as soon as they could after the SU entry into the war.

They deserved the destruction they got. Hirohito could have ended it long, long before he did. He chose not to,Japan was indifferent to the suffering of it's citizens.

So could the US administration as they basically accepted the same terms the Japanese were offering since mid year AFTER dropping the bomb and gaining the active participation of the SU.

Anybody who feels "sorry" for Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany simply is ignorant of the facts. when you cause the kind of savagry they did, Karma will pay you back times ten

Oh i feel sorry for Japanese and German people as neither elected the leaders they got and neither were fundamentally inclined to world domination. Germans and Japanese were generally just as much victims of their circumstances as those they attacked ( Germany executed more than 200 000 of it's own soldiers during the course of the war; SU is around 3/4 of a million and not sure about Japan) and as with most people who suffering under such totalitarian regimes they last out at anyone who makes their situation even worse by resisting them.

Obviously feeling sorry for a enemy that you did not choose doesn't make much of a difference since your in most instances a conscript yourself and have only so much say any ways. The question is one of justice and in those terms we should all be very thankful that the western allies won even if the member of that alliance that did the vast majority of the fighting was every bit the monster Hitler was and it's army's conduct on the battlefield no better.

Surprised you mention Karma! If only the universe respected such concepts it would have been so much nicer. If only the wicked got what they deserved. The fact that some are under the illusion that the world actually works this way worries me greatly.

Stellar

reply to post by Jrags


You can read about the Development of the Laws of War through history at wiki some folks dont like wiki as a source but most topics like this have plenty of sources in the footnotes.

Laws of war

Hi,

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
May, June, July anytime after the defeat of Germany or how about 1941, 1942, 1943, or 1944 while the Americans, British, and the Commonwealth Nations were sending them megatons of lend lease, providing all the cloth for thier uniforms, leather for thier boots and other equipment, all of thier aviation fuel, raw materials for building thier tanks and airplanes. over 500,00 trucks and virtually all of thier rail and locomotive stock and enough SPAM that they were still selling it their markets into the 70s.

True as all this may be, and i am glad to know a few do actually know this( not so sure about the spam), the lend lease that arrived in the Su before they managed to beat back operation Operation Typhoon ( had Moscow fallen i believe the SU would have lost the war eventually) and their own winter counter offensives had done enough to severely limit the potential for Heer grand offensives in 1942.

The salient point in all of this is that lend lease greatly aided the SU in it's eventual victory ( some even argue that it could not have won without the lend lease AND a second front) but that without the millions of gallons of Russian ( well mostly) blood to add to the mix it counted for naught. A invasion of the European mainland was always going to be practically impossible without the blood price the SU paid in systematically wearing down the Heer and since the western allies could never pay it they were all too willing to help whichever monster would.

I have been in war, it sucks,that being said studying war is a hobby of mine. Would I have prefered that the Japanese surrender before the bombs were dropped, yes of course, I would also have prefered that Japan not embarq on their campaign of conquest from 1933-1945. I would prefer many things in history and warfare be different.

I have read just enough ( and it takes a fair bit given the average enthusiast's remaining enthusiasm) history and war history specifically to know that you avoid it as best you can until you no longer can or it becomes a moral imperative to fight. My point here is not that the Japanese were very reasonable but that it was not impossible to understand them and the channels and means existed to have peace in the pacific many months sooner without any more compromises that were made AFTER the bombs were dropped and the Russians on the move.

I have in the past overlooked the fact that the American high command were at this point in quite a bit of turmoil itself ( Roosevelt's death and Truman having his own concerns at home) but i still believe a more reasonable solution could have been found than nuking Japans largest Christian community at the time ( Hiroshima).

Regards,

Stellar

[edit on 18-5-2010 by StellarX]

Hi daedalus,

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Why was unconditional surrender the ONLY option?

It wasn't but since it 'worked' for Germany ( Goebbels LOVED it, you can really scare people when your enemy presents you with no options at all) it can surely work for the Japanese as well. The whole unconditional surrender issue is still something i find hard to understand but the best explanation i can offer ( from reading the books of people who can be called experts) is that the only way to get the western democracies to fight was to paint this as a moral crusade where the enemy would be given no quarter and the soldiers sacrifices not be negotiated away in treaties.

Why wasn't a naval blockade and starve-out policy of the main islands carried out?

Because historically , and this is well understood, when you do that the soldiers always eat first as they have all the guns. When you blockade someone you declare war on their poorest which is why economic blockades are always immoral actions even if not doing anything might be as immoral as well as beneficial to the hostile power.

Why wasn't an allied campaign to free China and push the Japanese back to the main islands undertaken?

Because it was impractical and the ever paranoid Stalin would have had a fit.

Does anyone really think a military junta could have survived through a blanket blockade? There would have almost inevitably been a revolution and/or uprising that could have received tacit support and funding from a united Rest of the World. And yes.. this would have served the dual objective of KEEPING the rest of the world united.

It would not have worked and was simply not realistic given the indoctrination and the society as it was. There were few attempts on Hitlers life and the generals only really turned on him because he was LOSING; it wasn't a moral issue. Fact is in such brutally repressive systems speaking out or staging any kind of organized resistance will not only get you killed by perhaps your family as well and if your unlucky all your friends and distant relatives as well. The SU took this to another level long before Hitler came on the scene but Hitler was every bit the tyrant.

The only thing blockades and bombardment normally achieves is killing the very young and the very old ( half a million Iraqi children below the age of five in ten years of sanctions ) and giving the moral authority to the enemy who know can legitimately claim to be fighting a ruthless and merciless enemy.

Does bombing over 200,000 (potentially innocent/unaware persons) into instant or horrendous slow death and condemning generations to genetic defects (DEFINITELY innocent) outweigh saving the lives of military men?

In dictatorships i would say no as the vast majority can't resist their government effectively any more than they can hide from it's chosen enemies. This is why war is hell and why Nuremberg trails correctly established that the ultimate 'war crime' is in fact the invasion of or the bombardment of another country. From this original aggressive action all the rest naturally arises with only mutual agreements ( based on retribution; i wont use gas because i know you can too) or cultural understandings to reign in the worse evils.

A quick end to the war was an easy way out. But was it the right way out?

But it wasn't quick and it was not morally correct either. The Japanese did not surrender because of the nuclear weapons as they well enough understood that they had more cities than the Americans had nukes ( as far as i know they were somewhat aware of the failed German efforts and that nukes were not easy to make) and that they could and would lose the war by inches/starvation long before American nuclear weapons could do more systematic damage than strategic bombing was doing every day.

So the nukes were not necessary but that does not mean that the strategic bombing was not or could not be killing Japanese by the hundreds of thousands every month.

Regards,

Stellar

Originally posted by Daedalus3
And I ask again.. why was it necessary to invade the home islands instead of blockading them?

Because an invasion would end the war quickly compared to a blockade. The loss of life on the Japanese side would have been many times what it was from the bombs.

Now that's just plain wrong.. The plans for invading home islands (X, Y and Z Day) were prepared much before the Okinawa invasion.
And the very reason that everything prior to Okinawa was not realistic was because Okinawa was a shocker.. That does not extrapolate to having unrealistic estimates before Okinawa.

The plans existed, but they did not refine the casualty estimates till after Okinawa started.

So the bombing was intended to kill the Japanese war machine? But wasn't it already being killed by unrestricted conventional bombing achieved during air supremacy? Looking a little pale there that argument.. genocidal even..

Are you asking me or telling me?

If it was already killed than why were they still producing war materials up to the day they surrendered?

The question remains.. Would a demonstration have sufficed? The answer is maybe yes, maybe no.. was there any harming in trying before attacking a civilian target?

No, a demnostration would not have sufficied. The Japanese would have never believed it. They had to see it with their own eyes.

Was there a fear that the Japanese would devise a magical means of protecting their cities/industries from nuclear weapons damage?

No, just a fear that the Japanese government would attempt to block any efforts to show the people the example.

One other thing to consider was that at that time, we did not have any more weapons to use for a demonstration. There would be no more bombs till September of 1945.

What is the fundamental element of surprise that was achieved by using this weapon in such a horrendous manner?
None whatsoever except to send a message to foes-to-be..

Now you sound like you are drinking the Kool Aid. If we wanted to send a message to foes-to-be (we did not) we could have done a much better job of it. The message was intended for it's target audience, no pun intended.

I did look at it and it seems to revolve around a message to garner public opinion to support WMD usage on civilian targets..
There is no military advantage as opposed to a demonstration with an option to use on live targets open as a subsequent step..
If there is.. find it and show it to me..

I already told you that there were not sufficient assets to warrant a demonstration. We already had told them of the device and that we would use it if they did not surrender.

I doubt if they really needed to get any more public support for a war against Japan. Do you really think Americans then would not support using a weapon that would save Allied lives?

Cut off? As in no means for repatriation and organised retreat? You sure about that? This was the only sizable army left to the Japanese and
Was it necessary to use 2 bombs?

Yes, the Japanese Army in China was cut off. US submarines sank anythign they could find in the area. There weren't enough of the right type of ships in Japan to bring that Army back.

Yes of course.. a live test on live targets is essential.. We should carry some out with the multi megaton yield ones we have these days..

How else would you measure the effectiveness of an untried weapon? Can you come up with a better way?

The question was about the usage.. not the existence..
The usage has resulted in a situation where the former soviet republics have a stockpile and yield total that is much larger than that in the US.
I most definitely think that the information in addition to joint ops in China would have postponed or even stopped the cold war from happening.

Stalin told Truman that he should go ahead and use it. The Russians were just as eager as we were to bring the war to an end.

I think you are wrong about stopping the Cold War. It didn't happen because we were the first to develop atomic weapons.