The United States should have used atomic weapons on Japan.

The bomb may of saved lives[3]. As Lester Tenney, a WW2 veteren, says"The atomic bombs saved my life and the lives of at least 140,000 POWs who were in Japan at the time,". That's over ï¿½ the deaths from the atomic bombs. While that is probably a bit much, there still would have been a significant amount because all other actions would have took time, in which more POWs would die. Refutations: R1. The Japanese would fight desperately. At Okinawa, about 40,000 civilians were drafted[1]. While it was the only battle were the Japanese surrendered by the thousands, not all Okinawans surrendered either. And they only surrendered while trapped, because imagine the reaction of other Japanese soldiers if some tried to surrender. Not only that, the civilian's did not make up most of the Japanese army, and it isn't likely that they'd amount to many casualties for the Americans. R1A. Peace was not an option. I'm sorry about missing that stern justice part... I think it was because I was sure it'd be in the punishments part, not when they were talking about the good stuff. We cannot be sure that a threat that could be an empty bluff would be enough to persuade the Japanese to surrender. Even after both A-Bombs and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese Big Six still couldn't decide whether or not to surrender, and required the Emperor's voice to finally decide to surrender[8]. It is obvious from this that peace was not an option. R2. The A-Bomb is scarier than firebombing. While bombing cities to dust wasn't new to the Japanese, it also wasn't very common.Yes, there was some cities bombed to dust, there also wasn't very many. The fire raids did destroy ï¿½ of Japan's housing and a significant part of their cities[2], but cities like Toyama weren't very common. Bombing non-populated areas may have scared them, but that still wouldn't have been as terrifying as bombing a city. After all, the Japanese were very resistant to surrender. What this means is that though bombing cities to dust wasn't anything new to the Japanese, it also wasn't much of a threat to them. In fact, they could have mistaken the bombing cities to dust threat as a massive firebombing raid. But this isn't conceding that the atomic bomb wasn't much of a threat. Rather, it is saying that the firebombing raids of the past weren't much of a threat to the Japanese, but something new did have the potential to scare the Japanese. Other bombings were just as deadly? No, the firebombing of Tokyo, a huge city, had about 100,000 deaths. That isn't even close to the deaths from the A-Bombs in much smaller cities. R2A. The A-Bomb is scarier than the Soviets. The atomic bomb could destroy huge cities with such ease. All you had to do was fly your B-27 above the city, drop the bomb, and get out. They could destroy any Japanese city, 100%, with basically no effort at all. And the Japanese Big Six believed that the Americans had another 100 bombs ready to go[4]. The Americans could basically destroy all of Japan on a whim with a 100 nukes. Imagine the terror if the US believed Canada had a 100 nukes and had already been nuked twice(and the US had none, just like the Japanese), and if the US didn't surrender, they would use them on the US. You can be sure that the US would surrender right away. How are the Soviet forces that much different from all the other forces in the world combined? Not only that, the atomic bombs were specifically designed to prevent the deaths from invasions(sure, maybe the US didn't intend to include Japanese and Soviets in that as well, but saving lives is still good). In the Soviet invasion of Japan, there was anywhere from 30,000-90,000 KIA, along with many more wounded[5]. Not only that, of the three days the Soviet soldiers effectively followed the words "rape and pillage"[5]. Soviet invasions often lead to wars like the Korean War[7], which add up to many deaths. However, your argument still is that the Soviet invasion was more threatening than the A-bombs, not about casualties. I ask you, how could a invasion be more threatening than a object which they believed could effectively destroy all of Japan on a whim. While, yes, the Soviets were threatening, there was about 1,600,000 Soviets in the invasion of Manchuria[6]. While that is a lot, is it enough to be more threatening than a enemy that supposedly could destroy you on a whim? [1] http://militaryhistory.about.com... [2] http://www.japanfocus.org... [3] http://articles.sfgate.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Yes, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, but I don't have access to the references) [6] http://soviet-invasion-of-manchuria.co.tv... [7] http://www.britains-smallwars.com... [8] http://www.doug-long.com...