The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb was Unjustified and Illegal.

Upon looking closer at the ratifications and specifics of the Hague and Geneva Conventions I realized that I had misunderstood the laws. The bombing was not illegal. I feel that we have significant differences of view on the bombings though and I would like to continue that debate. Shall we agree to take the "and Illegal" part of the debate? You make a very compelling an interesting argument but you fail to recognize the whole story. You begin very well but you end with a very emotional piece of writing but you ignore one very important fact. You seem to have the idea that the strategic bombing and use of the A-Bomb was necessary for the preservation and spread of freedom. You are mistaken. The allies were winning the war so only time, resources and lives were at stake. The allies would have invaded Japan successfully. Even President Truman the man who approved the use of the A-Bomb said that the U.S. would have invaded Japan whether or not the weapon was used. This was said while he was defending the use of the weapon. You make a great argument on the tactic of targeting civilians for Germany which almost won but not for Japan which was losing. You seem to consider the Japanese civilians evil. Just because a civilian population wants to defend itself does it mean it's evil? Does that justify their slaughter? Is it in our place to decide who is evil and who is not? Under your logic if someone considers you a threat you can bomb their civilians. 9/11 was a similar situation where the terrorists believed we were evil and threatening there religion and people. I doubt that you believe such a thing. You say that I should recognize the grey area in the debate yet you fail to do so yourself. You continue to use the word "evil" when referring to Japan's people and government. Is there no grey area? Is it that they are pure evil? A paragraph of questions to answer...."The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their government. The emperor was perceived as a god. The alternative to fire bombing and ultimately nuking Japan would be a land invasion. This would mean far more deaths on each side of the conflict. You have to tell me something. What else are we to do with a country that refuses to surrender? Have you forgotten the Japanese didn't surrender when the first nuke was dropped? The generals even wanted to fight after the second atomic bomb had detonated." "The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their government.", sorta true. They were in fact loyal to the emperor and do whatever he said which would mean if he surrendered they would accept it, as they did after the second nuke. "The alternative to fire bombing and ultimately nuking Japan would be a land invasion." This debate would be over if this was true but it is not. Let's use your old point about the grey area. Japan and its leaders were ready to negotiate or compromise, the U.S. was not. Japan was ready to accept the grey area, the U.S. was not. This resulted in unnecessary total war because of the U.S. refusal to negotiate based on your idea that they needed to annihilate the opposition. Had they negotiated they would have found that all the Japanese wished to negotiate for was for the Emperor to remain in place. He ended up remaining in power for a long time after the war. Japan was ready to surrender but the childish policy of total destruction by this country resulted in the deaths of millions of people. "What else are we to do with a country that refuses to surrender?" Let us be clear the Japanese refused unconditional surrender. "Have you forgotten the Japanese didn't surrender when the first nuke was dropped?" They refused to surrender because the generals refused to see the end of the Emperor who followed their advice. They feared dishonor because of his surrender and what they believed was an inevitable execution. You said "You would rather let the Allied forces be annihilated than suffer the fate of having a single Japanese "innocent" civilian die." I never said anything of the sort and do not believe it. Civilian deaths are acceptable but not the complete disregard for civilian life or even the targeting of civilians. This was the case in WW2.