1) the discussion of whether hostilities should have continued at all in anticipation of a possible immanent Japanese surrender is a separate discussion from whether nuclear weapons should have been used. Immanent surrender is equally a justification to forestall an invasion just as much as it is against the use of nuclear weapons.
To be fair, the topic of the thread is 'Was the use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified', and the arguments given in the opening post all essentially rest on the imminent surrender of Japan. I'd say the discussion as to whether nuclear weapons or invasion were the preferable option is a secondary issue. The more important question is whether an invasion would have been necessary, had nuclear weapons not been used. I've got no idea, personally, but it seems to me that this is the question that should be settled first.
™ Version 4.2
