The last section of the article actually argues against the article's stated conclusion, and it supports the statement you've replied to. This section, in particular:
> Attributing the end of the war to the atomic bomb served Japan's interests in multiple ways. But it also served U.S. interests. If the Bomb won the war, then the perception of U.S. military power would be enhanced, U.S. diplomatic influence in Asia and around the world would increase, and U.S. security would be strengthened. The $2 billion spent to build it would not have been wasted. If, on the other hand, the Soviet entry into the war was what caused Japan to surrender, then the Soviets could claim that they were able to do in four days what the United States was unable to do in four years, and the perception of Soviet military power and Soviet diplomatic influence would be enhanced. And once the Cold War was underway, asserting that the Soviet entry had been the decisive factor would have been tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Logically, this section asserts that the atomic bomb, though not successful in doing physical damage, actually created a political situation that allowed graceful surrender, and it aligned with the Japanese government's desire to preserve Japan's culture and forms of government. It's very difficult to speculate what the Japanese response would have been at this point had Hiroshima and Nagasaki been destroyed with conventional weapons. However, their way of life would have been more at risk without a clear way to appease the enemy, which we have evidence to suggest was on their minds.
It's important to note that the entire last section is speculation and offers no facts at all to support the claim that Japan consciously blamed the atomic bomb with these goals in mind. Yet, this is the crux of the article -- the idea that the atomic bomb won the war singlehandedly is a myth supported in part by the Japanese government's desire for self-preservation.
I think that's what the original reply author means when he says "all taken together." The atomic bomb clearly did not put a dent in the Japanese leadership's attitude, but, according to the article's speculation, it did allow them to make a life-saving decision more easily.