The USA Shouldn't have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I meant to say if I were looking at it from a humanist view, I still wouldn't agree one because I am not a humanist and two because of the strong feelings I have on this issue. The fact is, yes, the loss of life for both sides would have been exponentially larger had the weapons not been used. The president weighed the risks on using the atomic weapons, the cities that were hit in japan were mostly military based cities and most of the civilians had been evacuated as the Japanese government was expecting bombings in those cities. If the A-Bomb had not been demonstrated, it may have led to it being used sometime during the Cold War years that followed when the bombs had become a hundred times more powerful and could have led to global destruction. What matters in war is OUR casualties, not the enemies. You don't need justification to kill the enemy who is hell bent on killing you. It's said that the loss of Japanese lives would have been tripled or quadrupled (if not more) has the U.S. gone about an invasion similar to what had been done in France on June2 1944. not to mention the American lives lost, if you are an American you may not have been here today had it not been for the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The second time wasn't as necessary as previously mentioned. But justified to drop ANY? You'd have to ask two questions. 1) Was there any other way? A ground war against Japan would have resulted in millions of Allied lives, with no guarantee of short term victory. 2) Where would we be now, if America DIDN'T? You must assume that if the allies didn't stop Japan, then most likely all of Asia would be under their control.(If not more) Let's face it. Learning Japanese would be tough lol... There were a number of factors involved and more than anything, the determination of the Japanese military to continue the war after the Potsdam Declaration in 1945 where the allies called for Japan's surrender. The army estimated that it would have cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers lives to mount a successful full scale invasion of Japan. Another estimated half a million to hold the island. As much as you want to disagree with this it is FACT from multiple sources. Even if it meant house to house fighting on the Japanese mainland, the Japanese military stood firm that they would continue the bloody conflict that had already extracted extremely heavy US casualties in the Pacific Theater. As far as the US dropping down to the level of the Nazis, Soviets, and Japanese is not what I was implying. US has never had clean hands when it comes to war. Our history is based on our ability to wage war for or country. Like I said before the US did a very unethical thing from many peoples standards. But it was completely justified. What if the Nazis or Japanese had an A-bomb? Would they hesitate to use it? I think not they would kill as many of us as possible. Truman was one of the most decent men ever to lead a country. His statement in his diary about the warning to be given ("we will have given them a chance") shows his decency, absent in those who chose the attack on Pearl Harbor without warning. "Wars do not increase death because death is 100% in every generation." Nevertheless it is a rationalization. No such weapon had ever existed, and its power could not be conceived by those not aware of the things learned during its development. Given the military culture in Japan at the time, where surrender was considered a disgrace, and the lust of conquest which has propelled the Japanese war machine, Truman was correct in his assessment that a warning would not work. War is the culprit, not the United States of America.