Funny that people defend two nukes that where targeted at civilians, while Japan at least had the decency to attack a military base. Evaporating around 200,000 civilians form the earth can´t ever be seen as a good or justified action, neither is attacking pearl Harbor. But claiming that the VS did the right thing and the Japanese had it coming is pretty hypocritical for anyone who claims mass murdering civilians are a bad thing, and should be avoided during war. Because the US certainly had not a single intention of that while launching that bomb on a city, they already made one for Tokio. At that point the US could effectively murdered more Japanese than Jews during WW2.

Nuking a city is pretty much genocide already since you don´t hurt the millitairy with it. War is millitairy vs millitairy, while nuking a city is effectively wiping out a country´s civillians. To answer your question nuking civillians is defenitly a war crime.  

If the US hadn't dropped the nukes then they would have invaded instead which probably would have lead to far more casualties in the end. The nukes was horrifying but a necessary evil

For the Americans wanting Japan to offer more official apologies to the US for Pearl Harbour first.

Why not take a line out of Hammurabi's law and make everyone happy: eye for an eye.
The US gets to bomb a Japanese military base,
Japan gets to nuke 2 US cities.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both part of Japan's Military infrastructure.  Hiroshima was a command center for the entirety of Japan's southern forces, most significantly the forces on Kyushu where the Allies planned to land at the onset of Operation Downfall.  Over 40,000 military personnel were stationed there.  Hiroshima was significant to Japan's defensive war effort.

Nagasaki was significant in Japan's industrial ability to make war.  

Both would have been bombed to oblivion anyway as part of the firebombing campaign leading up to the invasion in an attempt to soften Japan for invasion.  

And also, these facts illustrate why your vision of war as pure military vs military is just an idealistic fantasy.  In times of war, the nation as a whole is part of the effort and military and civilian infrastructure will inevitably intertwine.  Today we have the benefits of precision weapons.  Then though?  Whether by a nuke or a firebombing run, Hiroshima and likely Nagasaki were doomed.  

And the other thing is that while civilian casualties are always regrettable, civilian suffering is part of war.  Because victory in war is by breaking your opponents will to fight OR obliterating them utterly.  Finding the best, least costly way to achieve the former is all a commander can hope for.  Not every decision is perfect.  But I'll not sit here and coldly dismiss Hiroshima cause if you put the lives of millions of people on both sides on my in my hands and told me my choice could save or doom them, I don't know what my decision would be.

It was not a necessary evil, as soon as you start justifying mass genocide of civilians you are no better than what you are supposedly fighting against. The US wanted to drop them as they wanted to see the effectiveness in action. It was a hideous war crime. However I don't see much point in apologising, it wasn't Obama or any of the current military that committed this crime and sadly those that did it will never be punished beyond there own conscience.

So how is dropping an atom bomb any more of a war crime then mass air raids?

Every victim of violence deserves an apology.

He should apologize. Targeting civilians with WMDs is inexcusable. It'd be considered a war crime by today's standards and that alone merits an apology.

Im sorry if this doesn't sound pc, but Japan got what they deserve. They should've known when you attack a country physically you have to be prepare to face retaliation. Don't get mad because we did something that stopped you quickly and potentially save a lot of American lives.