Anyone who looks at the actual research and alternatives would have to agree it was by far the best option. There is litereally no debate.
The other two options for were
A) Blockading and bombing japan conventionally, which would of led to the deaths of WAY more people as Japans food production was all located in one area. Every other area would of starved due to their roads and means of production being destroyed.
B) An invasion that would of cost more lives.... AND more innocent lives due to the japanese planned defense of training children and women to help fight the ground war.
Not to mention.
C) Either A or B but also with Russia invading and Japan ending up like Korea.
I mean, what other mirace option was there at this point? This is one of those few opinion type questions where you can just be outright wrong.
Also, it's worth noting that neither bombing was the worst allied bombings in the war.
THAT would go to the firebombing of Dresden by the british. Which was actually unessisary, killed more people and had more negative aftereffects. Yet nobody brings it up.
The only good thing that came out of it was Kurt Vonnoguet books.
