1) You forgot to mention another option which was accept Japans conditional surrender.

If we plan on playing crazy, why not go all the way.  Allow Hitler to remain in power and rule over the countries he occupied.

I cannot see any state using a nuclear weapon. Most/all countries with them view them as a defensive threat. Sort of an "if you cross this line, we nuke you" deal. Further, it's not that hard to track nuclear materials, let alone weapons. No country will give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group as it will be obvious where that weapon came from based on its construction, strength, the affiliations between countries and terrorists, etc. The only way a terrorist gets their hands on a nuclear weapon is if a nation collapses (watch out for Pakistan) or they build it themselves (very unlikely, since the IAEA is very good at tracking both legal and illegal sales of nuclear materials). Terrorists or the associates thereof have tried to build nukes before, and they were stopped well short by political means alone.

What argument? Some defeatists said something that is totally expected from fifth column? I heard worse things from this kind of people. You should probably start quoting Philippe Petain to back up the idea of how 'morally' Wermacht steamrolled Allies in France. The chances are that French people are likely to disagree with you, afterall they convicted him for a reason. Those ingratitude bastards, treated Peten like a criminal! Really, discussion starts getting ridiculous.

The entire arugement.  Since you've completely invalidated it by calling the japanese peace party traitors.  Something which you haven't backed off of... and have amusingly even went farther on.

Petain is an interesting choice... since he was indeed convicted by the jury, despite the fact that the three judges advising he should be aquitted.  After he was found guilty and set to be exucuted DeGaulle intervened... and critisized the trial.

If anything your example shows how mass sentiment can cloud reality.... like FDR.  Revisionist history sets in... and people start buying it.

Though really... even public sentiment of the time seemed to be WITH the peace party.  When some survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki started a lawsuit, Japan was against them... including a decent number of people from hiroshima and nagasaki.

^What relevance the whole peace party argument has to this discussion? Did it prove smth? Or somehow justify bombings in your eyes?

Did peace party position represent public opinion of majority of Japanese society, the hell with it, at least some meaningful part of it at the time? Even if it did, which I reasonably doubt, how exactly it's relevant to my definition of bombings as war crime? Crime is prosecuted despite an opinion of a victim. The last and the most important part - what these all have to do with my original points, should I repeat them for the third time?

Oh my, now it proves everything! Japan, an occupied country, was against survivors lawsuits (Japan was against... yeah, that's how you worded it)! Obviously history knows no examples of how legitimacy is bought in similar situations. The argument is just too strong, I accept defeat!

Seriously, I'm about to lose any serious attitude left towards this discussion.