Communications weren't exactly like they are today...

There is a lot of evidence that the bombs did not affect the end of WW2, yet they might have prevented WW3.
http://classroom.synonym.com/evidence-japan-going-surrender-10861.html
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
etc

In short, after the first bomb the Japanese didn't react, Russia declared war, Japan discussed surrender, second bomb dropped.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/
According to his close examination of the evidence, Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, as the revisionists argued, nor was it ready to give in immediately after the atomic bomb, as traditionalists have always seen it. Instead, it took the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, several days after Hiroshima, to bring the capitulation.

Both the American and Japanese public have clung to the idea that the mushroom clouds ended the war. For the Japanese, Hiroshima is a potent symbol of their nation as victim, helping obscure their role as the aggressors and in atrocities that include mass rapes and beheading prisoners of war. For the Americans, Hiroshima has always been a means justified by the end.


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.

RIP to the victims.

I'm sorry but what? Are you referring to bombing because bombing cities is probably one of the more indiscriminate forms of warfare there is. This tactic makes no distinction between soldier and civilian, a bomb just falls and explodes.

Don't look at me, the others are the ones supporting the idea that nuclear bombing reduced war casualties in WW II and that USA did it for that reason. If we assume that as true then two questions arise:

Why USA didn't apply the same strategy in other conflicts?

What happened to the country that cared so much about civilian deaths? It didn't take long for USA to support military coup d'etats that overthrown democratic governments (with obvious consequences to civilians opposed to them), do napalm bombing, agent orange or support terrorists like the contras.

Japan tried to surrender months before. Put a little bit simple the US wanted to have the Soviets out of that and at the same time demonstrate their new power.

Comparing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to conventional bombings, remote damage/long term consequences where totally different.
Another thing is the US basically studying those effects instead of helping civilians.

The idea is it reduced war casualties by bringing the war to a close much quicker with the use of a frightening new weapon. No need for a long and drawn out land invasion. Scare the enemy into surrender rather than having to fight the millions who were being mobilized to defend the homeland.

It's vital that newer generations remember events in history like this, because nobody must forget the past. The Second World War is a very interesting topic, and much of it shaped the world as it is today. It's also best to keep as objective as possible and remember that history is written by the victors. I can only guess how the people in those Japanese cities feel. Survivors themselves of course, but also newer generations. Maybe I can relate a little to the latter.

I live in a city that was hit hard by WWII, and even though my grandparents were young children back then, they can tell me (especially my grandfather) a near endless supply of vivid stories of what happened here 75 years ago and it's extremely interesting to listen to them. Luckily though, our city was hit very early on so tactics were still very crude and they only randomly scattered explosive charges accross the city. Material damage was very large, but due to the time of day and the clumsy circumstances civilian casualties were only about 1000 here (around 1500 including the almost a hundred other bombings and strikes during the rest of the war. Though mine is not the first city (one of still though and the biggest bombing operation at that point in time) to be bombed, we do have the questionable distinction of being the one that made the British decide that aerial bombing is fair game, in response to Goering being eager to test out the luftwaffe's new 'terror-bombing' tactic as a part of the early Blitzkrieg. Even today, the scars are still very visable and the city center still isn't really 'done', 70 years after the war ended.

Anyway, the bombings in the later war are of course of another scale altogether. The firebombings caused much greater damage and an exponentially greater amount of casualties so it's still hardly comparable. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of the most inhumane thing the human race ever did to itself, though it's hard to pick a most inhumane thing amongst the many in WWII. I'd like to visit Japan someday, and when I'm there I'd like to visit one of these cities to see how they are today.

I think there would have been other ways to end the war, as it was more or less over already. It got the job done that's for sure. At least this event is debatable, I think some other late-war firebombings like you mentioned are downright criminal. Dresden in particular, an unnecessary destruction of a city that harboured many fugitives at the time. Churchill wisely distanced himself from that one. I think any form of large scale aerial bombing is despicable; it destroys not only society, but also culture and history and the world may better hope that it never happens again on the immense scale in WWII.

So much discussion of topics like this tiday are completely out of touch with what life was like during those times. For all sides involved, their lives and the lives of everyone they cared about were at stake. Japan had killed millions of civilians and committed horrible acts of rape and torture that make ISIS look like the Salvation Army. They had used germ and chemical Warfare and were planning to spread plague through the western US to kill as many civilians as possible. The US dropped some Atom bombs. All of it was bad, but there is no need to dwell on any of it. It was a different time with different realities for those living in it. War, true war, is a brutal thing.

A. Yep and since Napalm in Vietnam, more recently White Phosphorus attack on Fallujah.

B. On the topic of reducing casualties by use of devastating weapons
Hasegawa’s scholarship disturbs this simple logic. If the atomic bomb alone could not compel the Japanese to submit, then perhaps the nuclear deterrent is not as strong as it seems. In fact, Wilson argues, history suggests that leveling population centers, by whatever method, does not force surrender. The Allied firebombing of Dresden in February of 1945 killed many people, but the Germans did not capitulate. The long-range German bombing of London did not push Churchill towards acquiescence. And it is nearly impossible to imagine that a bomb detonated on American soil, even one that immolated a large city, would prompt the nation to bow in surrender.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

Except it doesn't work. Would the USA surrender when one of more cities get levelled with a Nuclear bomb?