As opposed to carpet bombing multiple cities over prolonged periods of time, which was the only alternative and ultimately would have caused more deaths.

* You mention carpet bombing as the only option but in the end its just one of endless options that could have been resorted to. For example consider this: The japanese military was beaten and overwhelmed in the asia-pacific theatre, it was confined exclusively in Japan. What about imposing a universal trade embargo? This would have caused immense hardship on the japanese people and would have created very strong pressure on the leadership to negotiate an end to the war.

* Even if I agree with your contention. A carpet bombing conducted over several months is not the same as a nuke. In any sort of conventional bombing you have the option however limited, of choosing your target. With a nuke its just uncontrolled annihilation.

* The act of detonating an atomic/nuclear device over a live population is a very serious and barbaric act. It truly shows that mankind could be capable of destroying themselves. This event cannot be excused or explained away with flimsy assumptions as is being done by the US corporate media for about 60 - 70 years.

* Finally criticism of this act should not be construed as anti US as the american people had no say in the matter. This was a decision by the US goverment and political elite.

Anyway nice talking with everyone, I am at work and will leave now. Kudos to the OP for raising this important topic.

Again, "waiting out the Japanese people" allows Russia into the conflict. They would have just barged right in to China, whose government was standing on one broken leg, and possibly into Japan, forcing America's hand anyway.

There are so many variables in this equation that people are conveniently leaving out of this argument over whether the bombs should have been dropped. No one is arguing the horror of the bombs being dropped and it IS possible that the Japanese would have surrendered though that is far from a given and was very unclear, unlike what many posters in this thread would have you believe.

Ultimately, the decision was made that the war needed to end RIGHT THERE and some ugly steps were taken to accomplish that task to finish the conflict, keep the Russians out of southern Asia, and really, minimize the overall deaths inflicted. Were they war crimes? Absolutely not, as many other things done to civilians in that war were far more lengthy and brutal to European and Asian populations. It was an ugly time and an ugly war and hopefully the last of its kind mankind will ever see.

Sure the Japanese could have avoided war with America for a while, but their interests had been in conflict for years and I would argue it was war that had been coming. The US can hardly be exonerated on the imperialistic front. You are also seeing it from a very American point of view rather than how the Japanese would have seen it. The Japanese (like the Germans) would have seen American support of their enemies as provocation.

It doesn't matter if you think embargoing oil, supporting the Chinese was not provocative, the Japanese did. You even admit as much yourself when you say 'the Japanese felt threatened'. Whether the American government intended to be provocative is irrelevant.

It is mythical to think that the US would not have entered the war, but for Pearl Harbor. Sure the US was isolationist to some degree, but the so-called US national interest lay in supporting the UK and China (from the political classes point of view, at least) and by doing this it leads to the clear view within the Axis powers that the US was an enemy. Its like saying Lend Lease, Cash and Carry and so on were neutral when they weren't.

I don't think it is as simple as saying 'the Japanese started the war'

I have no assumptions. Some Japanese didn't want to surrender. Okay. The government had put proposals for surrender forward to the Soviets. They were not accepted or even discussed in any depth. This is either because the allies didn't believe in the sincerity of the offer or because they only wanted an unconditional surrender. Having the bomb at your side may well have helped keep minds focussed on the latter.

*sigh*

It was not the only alternative. They could have negotiated a conditional surrender.

You should consider working for the US government. You have the right mind-set regarding 'us and them' and see US actions as a force for good and a number of other countries as the opposite.

Saying that, I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly, so at least there is something we can shake on :P

Yes, the US government only does good things.

Like firebomb Dresden.

Don't assume you know a damned thing about me based on one fucking opinion on a message board.

PS. You should consider getting off your high horse.

If the Japanese wanted to surrender that badly, it would have been quite easy to contact us through American agencies or even the Chinese, a direct ally. Going to the Soviets in mid-1945 was a dumb move by anyone's standards, as American and Soviet relations had already begun to fall apart and it was all pretty public courtesy of Potsdam.

Besides, Japan would only agree to a conditional surrender before the bombs dropped that surely wouldn't have been favorable to America. Given the state of mind of people in 1945, after having faced TWO World Wars in their lifetimes, was it really unreasonable to demand an unconditional surrender to just end this shit once and for all?

can you prove that that is what would have happened? japan was close to surrendring anyways. germany already had. fact is we will never know what would have happened if they hadnt dropped the bomb