This is an issue where I take an unusual step (for me) of defending the US.
Just watched an interesting history of the war for some original, never seen before Japanese footage in colour, (can't remember the name it is on Netflics.)
While you may be somewhat correct, you are looking at it from your cultural perspective; I would suggest you try taking that perspective with some Japanese friends.
All in all, dropping a Nuke in a sparkly or uninhabited region could have gone a long way in the use as a threat.
As for the dirty DU bombs, there is lots of evidence to suggest the Afghan mountains are littered with the radioactive waste, least of which are the side effects the deformed births and myriad of radiation poisoning related diseases.
To your last point, history seems to be repeating.
I saw at least part of the documentary recently, probably on youtube. It almost certainly had something to do with my comments.
I have chatted a bit with Japanese friends about things, and one time in particular while I was in Japan. Although only one datapoint, I detect some sensitivity to the issue. Unsurprisingly. She said mostly that 'it was a terrible weapon' and left it at that. It would have been rude to continue the conversation with some of my arguments, and I tend to be more rude on bitcointalk.org than in real life unless I know someone extremely well. Anyway, I bet I would hold a very similar viewpoint even if I were a Japanese, but not very many people are as brutally analytically as I. I do recall an interview with a high ranking Japanese officer or official prior to his death and he said that of course Japan would have used atomic weapons against the US if it had the ability. In a general way this is not a justification for anything, and in part because I want to see the US being 'better' than others and feel that we fail when we are not, but my point is that nuking Japan in 1945 was a logical decision that almost anyone would have made at the time.
As for DU, uranium itself in it's natural mix of isotopes is not very radioactive although it would stand to reason that it is contaminated with other radioactive materials as a result of the production and refining process. It's also a heavy metal which, when used in weapons, is highly atomized and does the same to anything it hits as a target. It would not surprise me in the least if it created environmental issues. Nor would it surprise me if some of the issues are overblown by the anti-war folks (my side) for propaganda reasons. One way or another, the fact that we are shooting the stuff at people half way around the world at all is deeply wrong irrespective of the environmental damage.
We use DU because it makes war profiteers rich to be sure, but it would not surprise me if it were a form of genocide planned by our strategists. Like what Israel does on the West Bank. A) disable sewage treatment B) arrange lack of protein by controlling imports C) allow fishing only within a near zone where the fish are contaminated and shoot fishermen who stray beyond. I can see no way that this is not planned and that it constitutes anything other than straight-up ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians who survive will be ones with particularly strong immune systems which will be interesting to evaluate from a scientific perspective at least.
)
