Keith Muschinske, whether we should or shouldn't have used atomic weapons on two Japanese cities takes a distant second place to the fact that it happened, and the fact that it happened has largely shaped our concept of deterrence, and many of the dynamics of the Cold War.

The real question, at least to me, is the concept of attacking civilian populations along with military installations, with the flimsy justification that "they did it too."  Or with the dubious conclusion of weakening their "will to war."

It's said that all war is war on women and children.  We'd already decided to fire-bomb German and Japanese cities as a means to weaken civilian support for the war effort; even though by this time that population was subject to the military, not the other way around.

The real validity of Hiroshima is that there are still people willing to use nuclear weapons on civilians to achieve military goals---Do we want to be among them?