1) Unable to comprehend. Please, clarify.

2) International Court of Justice would like to disagree... well, if it existed at the time and had jurisdiction over such cases. Military necessity isn't some vague substance of moral kind, it's pretty defined legal term, which couldn't be applied to certain actions. In this particular case consequences (including but not limited to massive deaths of civilians, which by no means weren't collateral) absolutely overweight any military necessity. By modern standards people responsible for nuclear bombing of Japan are war criminals.

3) My attitude towards bombings as immoral act is my personal opinion, things like a) decision to bomb was based on matters other than morality, b) weren't militaty necessity - are facts.

Yeah sure evil Allies bombed Dresden- who carres Germans methodically destroyed 90% of Warsaw blowing street after street in retaliation for Warsaw uprising and let's not forget they were first to use terror bombing runs against civilian targets on massive scale.

You can bet they would burn London to ground if the had technical ability to do it.

As they say you reap what you sow

 1) Your saying the bombings weren't nessassary.  However it was one of three nessassary options.

The other two options were

Invade by land, more japanese soldiers die, more citizensed forced to fight die and more people starve.

Blockade, more soldiers die, more citzens die

2)  That's not true at all.  Lets go through this

A) It is intended to help win the war.  Well yeah this was basically the plan to end the war. Check.

B) It must be an attack on a military target.  Both bombs were targeted at military targets inside the cities.  Check.

C) The civilian losses must not be excessive compared to the expected military advantage.

The military advantage expected?  Winning the war because a show of weapons that big a country would have to be insane to ignore.

The number of civilians dead?  Much less then if we didn't win the war that way.

Check.

3) Doesn't change the fact that you stated your opinion as if an expert and dismissed other opinions.

Reasons the US bombed nuked Japan (in no particular order of importance)

1. To save US lives. The Japanese barely surrendered, their Bushido code of honour required them to fight to the death so if it came to invading Japan it would've meant huge casualties on both sides (going by previous engagements with the Japanese it would be a 1 to 5 ratio in favour of the US...and the Japanese were preparing to amass millions of troops for defense of their homeland). Their is only so much conventional air power can do though it did devastate Japan far more then the nukes did.

2. To show the world (and in particular the USSR) the US was the new world superpower and the only country in possession of the ultimate weapon.

3. To evaluate atomic weapons use in combat (or against civilians in this case).

4. Revenge.

5. Japan refused to surrender unconditionally.

I leave you with two quotes-

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Funny fact but at Nuremberg Trials the defence abused of the phrase "absolute military necessity", notably Otto Stammer, Goring's attorney. It didn't help. Your reasoning is based on groudnless assumptions and won't help in court either (the prosecution will simply eat you alive). Though it should be noted that "vae victis" is the only law of war that's actually working.

That's very simplistic approach and again a lot of assumptions neither you nor I know anything about, but there're more options except those you've gave. Even if exclude conventional warfare, targets for nuclear bombing could have been chosen better to avoid deaths among civilians, e.g. bombing distant military object or sparsely populated areas to warn opponent about consequences of further resistance. These actions could have been recognized as military necessity.

//"Nuclear bombings are to save lives" is a common historiographical cliche that children have been taught partly to save teachers time instead giving them more complex picture. That's basically what you've told me in our prervious discussion regarding "FDR saved US", why not now?

How were those groundless assumptions.

Every one of those is backed up by a direct fact... and in fact... are known quantitites.

Also uh... the Nuclear Bombings didn't happen under FDR.

Nuclear bombs saving lives isn't a historiographical cliche, it's demonstraitibly the case... and even the half of the japanese government that wanted peace at the time... who priased the bombings because it allowed them to force the peace deal and save japanese lives.

I called them "groundless" for a reason. You very easily estimate death rates in scenarios you proposed while despite how vague they're I don't see these estimations as obvious as you seem to imply.

Did I say that? O_o You've probably misunderstood me, I war referring to our conversation on FDR's New Deal.

Well, there're freaks and traitors in every nation. Pardon my French, but it doesn't mean shit.

sounds like someone has no real arguments and is just being a sore loser because their country didnt get to carve up more of japanese territory.

no I don't think so because it would cause chain of event which could lead to a full out nuclear war which really no one wants. So chances are slim at least for this decade.

So in otherwords... arguement conceeded.

Afterall, your arguement is now "The people who wanted to surrender were freaks and traitors."

Which A, isn't a real arguement and B if anything, further drives home the point that the nuclear bombs ended the war.  Afterall, if the side of the government that wanted peace BEFORE the nuclear bombs dropped were all freaks and traitors... why would "Non freaks and traitors" go along with them, why wouldn't they stay loyal to the government... and the emperor.  (Who was apparently a freak and a traitor according to you.)

I mean, your whole arguement has boiled down to labeling the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the entire cabinent, aides of the empeorer and everyone else... as "freaks and traitors" who apparently were lying about the nuclear bombs being instrumental in forcing the surrender... without a shread of proof, evidence or even a suggestion on why that might be.

As the saying goes, you are free to have your own opinion... but not your own facts.  Feel free to keep you're opinion, but you should note that it is contrary to the facts.