I completely agree, most of WW2 was a war crime, genocide. Yet, the title of this thread reads : "what's your point in the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings?". The answer to that can be no less than unjustifiable war crime.

Well I see nobody is reading the list of quotes I posted above.

Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq,
Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Japan. What do all these countries have in common?
America has bombed every one of them. Maybe more.


On topic: I think a technology such as the atomic bomb, should not be used as a weapon.

Right. The Japanese did not want to surrender unconditionally because it would have led to the removal of the Emperor from power and his possible indictment in war crimes tribunal. The same applied to all high ranking military leaders in the country. They had hoped to prolong the war long enough to force an armistice with the Allies (Operation Ketsugo).  They even anticipated the invasion course the Americans would take and were planning countermeasures. Their predicitons were very close to what was laid out in Operation Downfall.

In any event it was necessary for the Allies to demand unconditional surrender. They had demanded it of Germany. So why not Japan?  Since the Meiji Restoration Japan had become an Imperial player hellbent on expansion. Why take the risk of giving them a second chance? That was the lesson learned during WWI. The armistice resolved nothing in the long run and Germany went on to invade Austria in spite of the treaties. Then when they invaded Poland the Second World War began. Japan could have just as easily tried to pull the same thing with Korea and China. 

Moreover, Japan were the aggressors. Their unprovoked attack of Pearl Harbor demonstrated they were not to be trusted.

The Japanese would not have surrendered anytime soon had the Hiroshima bomb not been dropped. An abrupt end to the war was best for everyone.

It was a hoax. The japanese were frozen a used to make hot dogs for the next 40 years.

No, the Japan attack at Pearl Harbor was America's ticket into WW2 (with support from the American people). The moment they embargoed such an agressive Japan's oil, they knew and wanted them to attack.

Basically, they were provoked.

"Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.""

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

They weren't provoked in their 1930s conquests, Nanking, or in the wholesale slaughter of Chinese citizens and Pacific Islanders. 

The US put strict embargoes on them (and the Germans) because they were attacking US allies. The American public wasn't ready to enter a war yet and Pearl Harbor gave the impetus to fight back with real troops.

But to say the Japanese were "provoked" is entirely and utterly wrong. They played the first hand and the US reacted to it, forcing an escalating situation.

It had to be done. War is cruel and the USA had the biggest bomb. I really don't get why there's so much controversy.

MacArthur wasn't perfect, though it's hard to fault most of his analyses of the Japanese people.

Out of all your quotes, though, there is one major factor that few seem to address:

How would the US have stopped the USSR from taking huge chunks of China and Japan if the USA tried to wait out the Japanese people?