Bombing Japan was the best way to end WWII

Speculation, Eh? You want evidence, I'll give you evidence. 1) I talked about how we weren't with the League of Nations, And how it wasn't a demonstration of power. And it was no test of the bombs by dropping them on Japan. 2) Ruling out ALL other options would take years and include government documents I don't have. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best spots to drop them due to two reasons. They had to convince the government to surrender (which wouldn't have been that hard), But you also had to convince the people that they needed to surrender (which would've been much harder without a bomb). 3) I meant the "you" as in Americans, Not you specifically. I should've put 'they', My bad. 4) Two sets of leaflets were dropped in a bunch of military-related Japanese cities, Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first set told of "We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, Unfortunately, Bombs have no eyes. So, In accordance with America's humanitarian policies, The American Air Force, Which does not wish to injure innocent people, Now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. " (This isn't the full document, Just an important snippet). They were given a warning about the complete destruction of their cities, Not just a round of the usual bombings. Had it just been regular B-29s, We wouldn't have sent out pamphlets. And the second set of pamphlets said, "We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. " We gave them a fair warning. This makes it look like the citizens had an idea of what was coming there way. Even if a civilian didn't get it, Had anyone that cared about them (friends, Family, Etc. . . ) received one, They would've been warned about this. 5) Also, This actually wasn't my opinion. It was reasoning that came from Washington, DC (which meant Truman, Too) about why it was beneficial to bomb them twice, Not just once. The bomb didn't miss its mark either, Hiroshima was dropped on 300 yards from the target point. Nagasaki missed by a little under two miles, But it still did the damage that was meant. 6) I chose my words poorly, As you are correct about the economy being shot at this time. But you didn't address the morale part, Or the part where I talked about the people would've fought on (more on that later). 7) Yes, I agree with you in the fact it was a war crime, There is no evidence to dispute the fact it was. But had we lost the war after dropping the 2 bombs, The people that had anything to do with it would be persecuted as war criminals. Although the most modern war crimes came from the Geneva Convention, Which was in 1949, 4 years after the bombs had been dropped. 8) The first bomb was dropped with extreme accuracy, While the second was less so. Although they were both accurate in the way they both did the destruction they were meant to do. 9) 3015 dead in B-29s over Japan. Had we kept bombing them, That number would've kept going up, Higher and higher, Along with Japanese death count. Civilians would've been nuked. 213, 000 Japanese died in the B29 bombings alone, Civilians and military both. Also, I made the point about money not saying that money was more important to lives, But rather dropping the bombs (which were already made and ready) would've ended the war sooner (which it did), But also wouldn't have cost as many lives or money. It was more of a secondary positive rather than a primary motive. 10) Indeed, It is the coolest of stories. 11) Demonstration = Blow up the bomb in the ocean or unpopulated land. I was fighting against why a demonstration would not work. 12) Ah yes, No data at all. The Navy Department estimated 1. 7 and 4 million casualties for Americans, And 10 million for Japanese I mean, The Navy Department wouldn't know anything, Right? Staff working for Chester Nimitz calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49, 000 men. MacArthur"s staff concluded that America would suffer 105, 000 casualties after 120 days. Chester Nimitz and MacArthur both were alive at the time of the bombings, So they obviously could've estimated the men it would take up. Maybe a quick google search would do you good before you talk about something you aren't so sure about. 13) You see, The Japanese government may have surrendered, But the Japanese people wouldn't have without a good reason like I said above (but you tiptoed around). It wasn't very known that there was a threat of a revolt against the government, Led by an Army group supported by the peasants, To seize control and continue the war. Also, Had the soldiers still been able to fight and the government had lost control over its people, Then millions of former Japanese soldiers took to guerrilla warfare in the mountains, It could take a million American troops ten years to master the situation (Karl T. Compton said so himself, A guy who actually worked on the bomb). So let's say they would've surrendered, But we just had to wait (which wasn't the case), That not only would've cost more lives, More time, And more money than was needed. The bombs were the best way to save all three of these, And the U. S. At the time had to take the best course of action for the U. S. And the allies, Which Japan wasn't apart of. I mean, It ended the war, Didn't it? I've covered all the main points that need to be covered to prove it was the best option to bomb them. I provided specific evidence while you have yet to do so, Just generic claims and a Monty example. I recommend you research at least a little bit behind the points you want to counter. And don't worry, I'll have fun continuing this on in the comments if you still need some convincing.