Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?

In the thread - War and Morality. Al Queda vs. USA there was a disagreement between Dronestar and I concerning the use of atomic bombs by the USA against Japan, ostensibly in order to hasten the end of the war and to reduce allied casualties.In Message 162 Dronestar presented five assertions which I believe are worthy of further discussion.

quote:

---

1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.

---

I feel it is inappropriate to respond to these questions in the Al Queda Thread, as it is off-topic.However, I do not feel the issues raised by Dronestar are as clear-cut as his posts would indicate.I take particular issue with his statement from Message 128

quote:

---

Of the many items, which particular items on my list do you find dubious? I am thinking at least some of the points were "un-contestable" to moral and intelligent people.

---

First, I believe that I am not totally without morals or intelligence when I disagree with what I view as an over simplistic interpretation of the events that led to the surrender of Japan.Second, I disagree that the decision to use atomic bombs, was, or even considering some modern scholarship, somehow "un-contestible" given the time and circumstance.I also reiterate "I wish it didn't happen." However, given the times, I can understand why the decision was made and would like to argue how the decision was not only likely, but also damn near inevitable, despite the horrid consequences to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians of all ages and genders who lost their lives.In this debate, I intend to use both primary and secondary sources to explain why I feel Dronestar's five points are either an oversimplification or based upon limited and/or biased information.I am open to either a regular OP open to all or a great debate, Dronestar's choice.{ABE} Perhaps all involved, including myself, can learn something new {/ABE}Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : replace the term questions with the more accurate assertions, first sentence after first quote.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

Thread copied to the Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? thread in the Coffee House forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.