The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

1. We did have a unconditional surrender policy but we weren't unwilling to accept their emperor as a figurehead after the war. The U.S., in fact, presented the Potsdam Declaration, which were the surrender terms the United States demanded that Japan had to abide by. Here are the terms within the Declaration. "1. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world." "2. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth." "3. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." "4. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives." There are more but these were the major terms. The Japanese ignored the Potsdam declaration. They intended to "kill it with scilence". In all we never heard any serious talks from them regarding the peace deal we made which allowed Japan to remain an industrial power. Lewrockwell automatically displays it's bias by announcing that they are an anti-war and anti-state website while this source, http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com... Is the pacific war online encyclopedia which displays facts, figures, statistics and information regarding the Pacific Campaign of the Second World War, and all the while does not claim any political, moral, or philosophical stance. Regarding the Cancer caused by the atomic bombs is regrettable, but do not make the bombings unjustified. Our intention was to bring the war to a quick end and build peace with that country, not plague them with cancer for generations to come. Seeing that after the atomic bombing the United States sent soldiers to go to the cities that were bombed to clean up and repair the city and knowing that many U.S. soldiers got cancer themselves I find it difficult to believe that our intentions were to needlessly kill or harm the Japanese people. The U.S. was not aware of any will in the majority of the Japanese people to simply surrender. To put this in perspective for you, the Battle of Okinawa was over small Islands south of mainland Japan. In the fighting as many as 150,000 Japanese civilians alone were killed, over a chain of small islands. Yet you claim an invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in less than 200,000 civilian deaths. Japan was still able to muster millions of regular army soldiers to prepare to fight an invasion and as long as the army was fighting why would the civilians surrender? The Japanese also made it publicised that they had tens of millions of civilians prepared to fight in the Japanese Volunteer Fighting Corps, which was simply composed of every able civilian with the purpose to fight the Americans in an invasion. The fact that we didn't have to fight millions of unfit people shows that the bombs saved an invasion from having to occur as well as the casualties that would have resulted from an invasion. Yes, we weren't allies immediately after the war ended, countries defeated and occupied are rarely supporters of their defeater and occupying army. And in light of the fact that we were allies shortly after the war ended, extended a huge helping hand to rebuild their cities after the war, established a democratic and peaceful government, and have had a strong friendship ever since, a friendship that lasts today, your single quote from one Anti-American japanese survivor is a drop of hate in the sea of comradery that the country of Japan has directed towards the U.S. Yes Russia did not want to be weaker than us due to their ultimate objective to spread communism world wide by force. I already argued that Russia did not need the excuse of the atomic bombings to build up a large nuclear arsenal, they simply needed to follow their stated goal of world wide communism. All in all an arms race between the forces of Communism against the forces of Capitalism was going to happen regardless of what types of weapons came along in the future. I would argue that possessing nuclear warheads helped prevent armed conflict from erupting between the U.S. and the USSR due to the fact that neither side wanted to be obliterated in a war. The Cold War was going to occur whether nuclear bombs were created or not, again, it was the stated goal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to conquer the planet and place all of mankind under communism, something we would spend billions on defense to prevent. Now for the sake of argument, let's say that due to the atomic bombings, the USSR suddenly technologically advanced and developed thousands of nuclear weapons, something you claim that would not have happened had the bombigns never occurred. The fact that the United States and the USSR had nuclear weapons did not have any major negative consequences. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.operationolympic.com... http://findarticles.com... http://www.peace-museum.pref.okinawa.jp...