"You have some U.S. military and political figures who think they would've surrendered fairly easily, and you've got some signs from the Japanes of looking for a way out, but nothing conclusive. Ultimately, you've got a lot of hearsay and conjecture."

i've read this whole thread, and grimm has come up with a LOT more than just "hearsay and conjecture." maybe in the dictionary definition, literal sense it is, but in REALISTIC terms the evidence grimm is putting out here is from informed, credible sources and lots of them.

is it POSSIBLE that japan would have not surrendered if the a-bombs were not dropped? perhaps, but can ALL these quotes from government officials, japanese officials and historians be written off just like that? read through this entire thread again. i'm not seeing how cats can disagree with the fact that there were other, non-atomic, options available. and i don't even mean firebombing and starvation (and jdomino is right-- those are just as brutal and tragic)-- i mean diplomacy. negotiate an end to the war. the quotes supplied by grimm here clearly show that the japanese wanted to end the war.

in terms of the idea of a "formal apology," i don't think it's really worth arguing about. this thread mutated into talking about whether dropping the two bombs was right or wrong, not about whether the US should formally apologize, and i for one see the former as a much more interesting discussion anyway. jdomino is right on this one too-- if the US apologized, pretty much every country involved in the war would have to apologize for something else. i mean, i'm for that i guess, but i doubt it'll ever happen.