Bombing Japan was the best way to end WWII

So after reading your response, I have a couple problems with your methodology, Then I'll move on to rebutting you critiques. 1) Your overall argument is very apathetic to the civilians killed in these attacks. You prioritize things like testing the bombs and demonstrating our power and our deals with The League of Nations over hundreds of thousands of human lives. I find this troubling. 2) You have asserted that the bombs were the only viable option, But you didn't make counterpoints to rule out ALL of the other options and you didn't make counterpoints to justify that it was necessary to drop them in the way they did. Since you have not done this, Your argument is still only speculation at best. You said: "You aren't thinking about the enemies feelings but rather how you can win. " This is a red herring. My argument is concerning the civilians that were killed. You're trying to distract from that by saying that me wanting civilians to live is "thinking about the enemies' feelings". Furthermore, I'm not even sure this phrase is even true in all situations. You said: "we also dropped pamphlets down into Japan" First problem here is that you're talking about warning people about a weapon that had never been seen in history. Citizens who received these pamphlets would have assumed that these bombs would just be comparable to things they've seen before. The bombs that citizens normally dealt with would have been ones that could be evaded by simply going in normal bunkers and the blast radius would have been expected to be smaller. There is no way that you can justify saying that the citizens could know what was coming their way. You said: "One bomb wouldn't have been enough. The Americans wanted to show Japan it wasn't some "freak of nature" that would only occur once" This is just your opinion. This does not demonstrate any moral or even tactical reason why the second bomb was necessary. This is especially so since that bomb missed it's mark, Which means those people didn't get the pamphlets you're talking about. You said: "Crippling not only the economy of Japan but also the morale" This is false. Japan had already been crippled before The U. S. Even offered their absolute surrender contingency. Their infrastructure was shot. Their navy was non existent. They were even on the verge of famine. That's why it was overkill. You said: "The League of Nations laws is the biggest factor contributing to the "illegal" or in this case "war crime" aspect of dropping the bombs" True, But that just means that they were accessories in the war crime. I don't care what judgements they made. If you look at the laws of war, They violated the civilians clause and the retaliation clause. A war crime is a war crime even if the arbiters are performing it. You said: "The atomic bombs were both dropped with accuracy, " This is embarrassingly false. It is well known that at least one of the bombs missed horribly. You said: "The only other bombs we had were the B-29s, " The U. S. Casualties from using these bombs would have been scarce at best. This is a far more morally superior alternative as opposed to nuking a bunch of civilians. As for the comment about money. I don't care about money over lives, Especially civilian lives. You said: "My original argument was engineered to be weak" Cool story. You said: "What about a demonstration? " This is a horrible reason to kill a bunch of civilians. War is not about grandstanding. You said: "What about a ground invasion? " This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is no data set that we can point to that can prove this claim. You're just speculating as to how many soldiers would have died in the attack. If people had the technology to properly estimate casualties, Then there would be no point in the war because the losing side would know they're losing and just give up. You said: "What about waiting for surrender? " Now we're getting somewhere. Yes! This is probably what they should have done. That's what civilized people do. Like I said, Japan had basically already collapsed in terms of war power. The only reason they were going on to begin with, Was their pride. I'm going to use Monty Python and The Holy Grail as an example. When the protagonist slices off the arm of the black knight, He ignores the wound and continues to fight. So the hero slices another arm. The knight keeps fighting. So he slices the leg. The knight still refuses to give up. Now at this point. The hero could have chosen to kill the knight, But he realized that this enemy was no longer a threat. Being the rational and moral person that he was, He showed mercy and let the knight go. The reality is that America didn't really have to do much of anything. They could have been conservative in the matter and let their opponent wear themselves out, But instead they decided to bring the hammer down to show how big their dorks were. At best, All you've shown is that nuking them could have been among the candidate options. This is not sufficient for your claim. You have to show that it was the best option and you've left too many variables untouched to justify it. Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence. Your Floor.