[dawn53]

I read it, but I was a little put off by this statement near the beginning of the article:

Nuclear weapons have been used in anger only twice: first at Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and then three days later, when the Japanese still refused to capitulate, at Nagasaki

So the reason we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshim was because we were ANGRY????? What does that mean?

[RoughDobermann]

So the reason we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshim was because we were ANGRY????? What does that mean?

It's just an expression.

[snopercod]

What does that mean?

A temper tantrum. You know, like when the voters threw Davis out in California. (Dan Rather speak.)

[Maigrey]

The author is wrong in that aspect.

We, (America) didn't drop the two atomic bombs in anger, but in a cold, calculating decision. Had we not done such, the cost in manpower and supplies in the Invasion of Japan would have been in the millions in manpower, and billions in supply. That would have been long, and extremely bloody.

The decision made, even with the death toll, eventually, won out.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The phrase "used in anger" or "fired in anger" is fairly common, meaning "actually used in combat" as opposed to tests or exercises.

Of all the nuclear detonations that have taken place since 1945, only two were "shots fired in anger."

The author was not commenting on the emotional state of the American people at the time.