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.

Except... it wasn't enough to force a surrender.

Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb.  The emperor wanted to surrender but by this point he was being controlled by his generals.

Hell after the SECOND bomb japan almost didnt' surrender because the guy the emeporer sent to offically surrender was almost interecepted by agents of the generals.

Only after the second bomb was the emperor freed up enough to surrender.

The generals were still trying to force in effect an american surrender by forcing them to let Japan keep some of it's conquests rather then have to lose way too many troops in a ground war.

My point is that three days wasn't enough time to properly scare the shit out of the Japanese and convince them to surrender.

Instead of dropping the Nagasaki bomb three days after Hiroshima, a nice public announcement of "hey, we have more of these and we're not afraid to use them" to the Japanese government couldn't have hurt. 4-5 days weren't going to make or break anything in the war.

I just don't see the point of destroying a second city until all other reasonable options had been explored.

It would of been good if they would of waited... I don't disagree with that.

but the historical documents show the result would of been the same anyway.  Just 4-5 days later.

It's not a joke.

If you read Mein Kampf and listen to his speeches, it seems highly feasible, if not probable that Hitler would have not attempted war with western powers. He respected them AND clearly stated many times that the lebensraum he desired was in the east where the so-called inferior races dwelled.

Doesn't mean I can't understand the British and French declarations of war.

Sorry i was banned so I couldn't respond.

But no in war the death of thousands is just collateral damage. If it wasn't during a world war it would be terrible.

http://www.medialens.org/cogitations/080115_racing_towards_the.php

Some very interesting points raised here.

Specifically...

In a careful account of events leading up to the atomic bombing, historian Peter Kuznick cites the Pacific Strategic Intelligence Summary for the week of the Potsdam meeting:

“t may be said that Japan now, officially if not publicly, recognizes her defeat. Abandoning as unobtainable the long-cherished goal of victory, she has turned to the twin aims of (a) reconciling national pride with defeat, and (b) finding the best means of salvaging the wreckage of her ambitions.” 

Colonel Charles Bonesteel, chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section, recalled: "the poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia.”[13] Allen Dulles of the Office of Strategic Services (precursor to the CIA) briefed Henry Stimson, the U.S. Secretary of War, at Potsdam. He wrote:

"On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo--they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and the constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people."