The issue of nuclear bombing presents a greater significance in light of Obama's disdain for America. In 2012, he did not make any public statement on the anniversary of D-Day. The country has shifted into agnosticism on the proper role of American power in the world. Additionally, in light of the Islamic world's rush to nuclear development (as is North Korea) he has done little to oppose Iranian efforts, along with Pakistan to proliferate non-America power.

Until Obama's disloyalty to American ideals but reflecting an elitist disdain about using atomic diplomacy, Eisenhower questioned the decision to detonate the atomic bomb (pp. 212-13). In his 1948 memoir, Crusade in Europe, Eisenhower expressed his misgivings. Fifteen years later, in Mandate for Change, Eisenhower was even more blunt and determined to object to the Bomb. The authors, despite the strong evidence that Eisenhower objected, merely state that Eisenhower's opinion was ignored. And why not? Eisenhower, despite his bearing as a military, yet morally informed individual, expressed himself in military terms and questioned the value of the Bomb, but the American public of the day was no doubt rabidly anti-Japanese and their down to earth sentiment advocated deployment. Few ordinary people of the time would have seriously questioned the wisdom of ending the war under regrettable, but necessary conditions. Instead of taking solace in the American qualms about unleashing such a weapon, the authors are adamant about taking Americans to task for the decision. General Omar Bradley concurred with Eisenhower's idealism as did several other high ranking military officials. The officials should be evidence enough that a sound and careful reflection on American values occurred that nonetheless resulted in the decision to deploy the Bomb.

In their discussion of Nixon (pp. 218-20, 332, 333) the authors do not even reference Nixon's Quaker upbringing as having a role in his thinking about the Bomb. It is enough to raise the bloody flag of Watergate, as irrelevant as it is, to besmirch his nuclear diplomacy.

They do reference media works which make an interesting sidelight into American views about Hiroshima. Also, they do point self-admitted limitations in McCullough's Truman. What would have been more helpful, since they largely dismiss Truman, was to delve into Truman's qualifications as a former artillery officer in World War I.

The authors report on an incident, reported in more detail in a documentary (pp. 233-234).

The 2007 documentary by Steven Okazaki "White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0911010/

Some Hiroshima survivors were flown to the US in 1955 to get plastic surgery for wounds they received when the atomic bomb was dropped. Among them was Shigeko Sasamori, who was interviewed for the film.

At the time, the leader of the mission, Kiyoshi Tanimoto, was featured on the TV show "This Is Your Life" where he met Captain Robert A. Lewis, the co-pilot of the Enola Gay, the plane that bombed him.

Clip from "This is Your Life:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_58byuLBu0

In the clip, which the authors describe an inebriated co-pilot, the flyer does not impaired at all.

In contrast, most veterans seem to be clear in their several propositions which disagree with author's conclusions (pp. 238-239.

There is a list of popular dramatic and written works which address the topic.

A story of the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the profound psychological and cultural impact that decision has had on America and Americans since that time. The heart of the issue is that there was no reason to drop the bomb to get Japan to end the war - the country had already extended feelers exploring possible terms of surrender. Rather, the bomb was dropped to signal the strength of the US to the Soviet Union. A fascinating read, albeit a bit cynical. ( )

A wonderful book on a difficult topic. Only one country has dropped an atom bomb - a technological achievement and a moral dilemna. This book details how America, rightly and wrongly, justifies the moral act. ( )

I gather this is vilently revisionist, but I have yet to read it.