IMO, this was crime but it was also neccesary to do it  but i don't know wich way i inclined better.

This is the mushroom cloud of the "Little boy" and The "Fat Man"

what is your point of view?

They are purely evil. EVIL I say.

Myself has spoken.

The decision to use the A-bombs was the best possible. the other option was prolonging the war in the pacific by another 6 months or one year. Seeing how the code of honor and nationalistic approach was evident in Japan, it would have been a bloodbath should they have continued to fight, right down to the last man standing.

Of course i will never support the usage of WMD's but at that very time...best possible choice.

Of course it's a crime. Massacring hundreds of thousands is a severe crime no matter your intentions.

The question is what did the killing of these people give back in return? I find it hard to condemn people for this decision as it was something of a "between a rock and a hard place" scenario

It was a neccessary evil. War itself should be a crime. Nobody wishes for these things.

Yes, it was horrible. 300,000 innocent people killed. Quite frankly, it's monstrous.

But you have to look at the situation. 300,000 deaths is still 0.5% of all people who died in the Second World War. It ended the war in the Pacific immediately and allowed all countries to start working towards a steady peace. It would have taken a long time for America to defeat Japan by conventional methods, even with the help of the USSR. And it did bring the Japanese military dictatorship to an end.

So, while it was horrible, it was necessary, and I would have done the same thing in Truman and the generals' places.

It was a BIG crime

But what if it hadn't been done and what if the war had been prolonged?

In terms of the number of deaths, would the number of deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

More specifically would the number of CIVILIAN deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of CIVILIAN deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Then you come down to the matter of the effects of the nuclear bombings on future generations, we know there have been bad effects due to the radiation.

Finally it all depends on perspective.......IF you were in a American family who's father/brother was killed if the war had been prolonged you'd say, "DAMN IT why didn't they drop those A-Bomb's on Hiroshima/Nagasaki......at least my father/brother would be alive!"

If you were in a Japanese family who's relatives died in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings and even if some survived you could see their children having defects due to the radiation you'd always say, "I would prefer it if the war had been prolonged instead of my family being affected like this"

There's no real answer to questions like these, but whatever happened was BAD.....its not a matter of right or wrong, this kind of like a grey area.

There is no such thing as "necessary evil". There is simply evil or god. Calling something as necessary evil will not justify it. It was maybe necessary from your point of view because your American. But intentional killing of millions civilians is nothing more and nothing else then genocide.

The Japanese slaughtered more than enough people to warrant those nukes