I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
Nagasaki
and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?

The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
during WWII.

High explosive, followed by incendiaries?

Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication.

Bingo. But you see its much more humane to kill with a stick of bombs and a
firestorm than to use a nuke. Because, you see, we knew so fricking MUCH about
fallout and radiation effects in 1945, our psychic president really HAD to have
known what an awful thing he was doing, in exchange for sending troops ashore
to end a bloody six year global struggle.

but the whiners on the other side of this goofy 60-years-too-late
afternoon-quarterbacking think we should have allowed the war to continue,
people to continue to die, all because they grew up knowing everything about
the Bomb and why it should not be used. Well, surprise, dorks, in 1945, the
best possible choice available to the US President was to end the war with
alacrity, using whatever weapon he had. He made several attempts to get Japan
to surrender -all efforts were turned away. Angelfarts that think we could
have just outwaited the defeated Japanese dont seem to have an answer to the
million-man Imperial Japanese army on the mainland, still fighting.

Truman was known as "give em hell" Harry because he had the guts to do whatever
was required to end the war and stop the deaths to Allied soldiers and
civilians - folks that look back with 60+ years of hindsight and think
themselves mighty damn outraged by the deaths of Japanese civilians are doing
so without the benefit of watching friends and relative perish in a long,
bloody war. Truman did his best with the info and technology available to a
world leader in 1945.

Gordon