The first one was morally ambiguous, the second one was an atrocity.
I disagree on both counts. There is a lot of bullshit floating around about the Japanese attempting to surrender. They were not. At the Yalta conference it was determined that the wars, European and Pacific would be pursued to their total conclusion. This meant unconditional surrender as to avoid the same problems that arose from WW1 where Germany was not completely defeated in the field.
The first bomb was a shock, but nothing was happening in the Japanese diet. It was the second bomb that allowed doves within the diet to wrest control from the hawks and issue an immediate and unconditional surrender. Surrender options WERE being explored by certain groups within Japan, but ALL of them were conditional surrenders. Since this was not on the table, it isn't worth talking about.
Now let us talk about loss of life. We will skip the geo-political stuff here because that was clearly a factor it isn't relevant to this next point. IF the US invaded by land, they estimated they would have taken as many as 1 million casualties. Ok, not let's forget about US casualties.
When the US invaded Okinawa, most credible sources estimate over 100,000 civilians were killed in the defense. That is almost one quarter of the entire population of Okinawa.
At the VERY least millions of Japanese would have died due to direct combat during the invasion. Now, lets think about what happens AFTER Japan surrenders. It's infrastructure is devastated, agriculture destroyed, clean water gone. I believe it was 1949 before the LAST people stopped starving to death in Japan and that is without an invasion.
Millions, perhaps 10 million or more would have died of starvation, typhus and other illnesses related to non-potable water.
So, you prefer the deaths of millions, in some of the cruelest possible circumstances? The US was morally obligated to drop the Atomic bombs until Japan capitulated, not only to preserve the lives of their own soldiers, but to save the lives of Japanese civilians from their own government and the catastrophic destruction of their entire country had an invasion occurred.
Nobody can really defend the use of such a devastating weapon and the terrible loss of life. But Japan committed horrendous war crimes against the Chinese.
The civilian deaths suffered by the Chinese far out way the casualties inflicted on the Japanese. Another sad and shameful part of human history.
But after learning of Japans notorious Unit 731 i really find it difficult to feel a tremendous amount of sympathy.
I think I just did defend their use. I personally do not understand the problem people had with those first primitive atomic weapons. More people died in fire bombings on Tokyo and other major cities, than died in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
It is the stigma modern nuclear weapons have and their reputation as globe killers that people become upset by.
I personally would never want to see atomic weapons used strategically ever again because they have gone beyond the realm of what is reasonable, and now exist simply for the the threat of mutually assured annihilation. Those bombs were not like that.
It was also a different time. Civilian populations were DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY targeted by the allies on an unprecedented scale during WW2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not even the two most devastating attacks on cities in their own theater, let alone Europe.
If you want to talk a cynical, unnecessary attack, look at Dresden. Targeted because it was a refuge collection point at a convergence of rail lines, ensuring the largest humanitarian crisis possible to tie up man power and create as much confusion and chaos as possible.
