Atomic bombings of Japan Necessary?

They fought like that pretty much everywhere the U.S. encountered them.

So would I. Damn to the government, but I would not stand to have foreign armies marching in my streets

People hear about it. They just don't talk about it. In the West, the majority could not give a damn about the Rape of Nanjing. In the East, it was a shameful thing to the Chinese, so they don't talk about it alot. And the Japanese don't want to get nuked when some crazed survivor who works at a Chinese nuke silo gets reminded of what happened. But don't make the mistake that people have forgotten. There is still alot of lingering anger and resentment from the Chinese [and alot of the other Asian groups that suffered from Japanese occupations] that is clear when you ask. Even in countries like the U.S., second and third generation Asian immigrants can still tell you about it because alot of their parents and grandparents still hold their grudges about it. The Japanese WISH that people have forgotten, but that is just wishful thinking.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/249/publics-of-asian-powers-hold-negative-views-of-one-another
"In China, much of the antipathy toward Japan is rooted in history - overwhelmingly, the Chinese believe Japan has yet to atone for its militaristic past. Eight-in-ten Chinese (81%) believe Japan has not apologized sufficiently for its military actions during the 1930s and 1940s." -from link.

Considering the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man, literally it was our only option

The Japanese did do horrible things in WW2 but nuking two cities full of civilians is never justified and makes the US just as bad. It was two cities, full of men, women and children. Either killed by the blast (if lucky) or suffering horrible burns and radiation. It spared the lives of soldiers by killing those not involved in the fighting.

A land invasion probably would have killed a lot more innocents than the bombs. What's more desirable? The destruction of two cities or the destruction of the entire country? I also love how people choose to ignore the fact that the the bombing of cities was a common tactic used by EVERYONE throughout the war. Hell, nether of the atomic bomb droppings did more damage than the firebombing of Tokyo. Almost more people died in the firebombing than both of the atomic bomb drops combined.

Umm... I'm pretty sure that the rest of the Asian groups that suffered under the Japanese's occupations would have [and some still today] prefered to see Japan and its people burned to the ground...

The Allies had already set the Japanese mainland ablaze with firebombing. It was only a matter of time until Japan was pressured to the point of collapse in China. The Soviets would have invaded Manchuria without the atomic bombings. The Koreans weren't exactly treated nicely under the Japanese, so within a matter of several months it would have been impossible for Japan to be of any real threat. Then, it would just be down to strangling them of supplies, they'd already taken a fair beating anyway.

The atomic bombings were just the Americans seeing the effect of atomic bombings used in a real war scenario. I suppose the Battle of Okinawa would have contributed to the decision, but I don't think the Americans should have eliminated two cities full of people using the justification of saving people.

I think more that it was dickwaving at the USSR. Both superpowers saw the Cold War on the horizon; in fact it basically began on V-E Day. One of the main purposes of the bombs was to show the Russians who was boss.

Wasn't there a scenario in Hearts of Iron 2 where "Operation Downfall" did happen?

I feel that it was a Necessary evil. I don't like the idea that we used it on a civilian target. I think we first should of used it on a military target. In the end I think I saved lives on both sides because an invasion of Japan would of most likely of been one of the bloodest battles in history.

Well the Japanese had their industrial centers mixed in tightly with their civilian centers. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial targets, it just so happened that they (like most Japanese industral areas) had large civilian populations packed together in the industrial zones. Anybody who uses the argument "it killed tons of innocent civilians" fails to realize that the government was willing to sacrifice all of its citizens to stop the invasion. And sadly, due to propaganda and the thought of Japan being invincible and Americans being cowardly savages,the majority of the civilians (still after the fire bombings) were willing to risk their lives for the emperor. The dropping of the atomic bombs saved not only millions of soldier's lives, but also the lives of millions of Japanese civilians as well. Japan surrendered because we had convinced them we had more atomic bombs, and were planning on dropping one in Tokyo, which obviously was not true.

NEITHER!

Why would the U.S not hold their ground and attempt to settle things diplomatically.

The Japanese knew, just before the bombings, that they had little to nothing of their empire now, whilst the Allies and Soviets where sandwiching the Reichstag, they also had the presence of the Admiralty, including all of the commonwealth of the British Empire.

They were going no-where at that point, the bombings were nothing but hasty and unnecessary acts.

What you do not understand is that although the Japanese leaders knew their cause was futile at this point, they could not fathom the idea of surrender. They were willing to take their country down with them. The dropping of the atomic bomb saved many more civilian and military lives than what the alternative was which was a full scale invasion. The Japanese would not have surrendered until most of Honshu was taken.

America could have dropped a nuke off the coast of japan and tell them "we will drop more on you if you don't surrender by a given time" that way it could force japan to surrender with out killing all the civies.

I think that was the intention of one of the bombs [Nagasaki?]. They meant to hit the water, but ended up hitting land.
Or was it the other way around?

Anyways, there is no guarentee that such a scare tactic would work if it appeared that the Americans were unwilling to actually use the bombs to their full potencial.

I completely understand Japanese customs, however ancient their Imperial system may be at the time, they will break, they should not break by nuclear fire!

Stop repeating yourself, and talking down to others as if we have no clue what we're discussing. We're getting no where in this debate.

You do not know whether or not it could have, this is not a "what if" thread, and by God if it was this would be a shit hole!

What you, sir, do not understand, is what they used it for, they'd already done tests on islands and saw the massive piece of land destroyed and people far away in fishing vessels irradiated. Could they have discussed it behind closed doors? If it is to be proven and that their intentions were inhumane, would you continue to support this rediculous statement you have made, over and over again?

I don't know why people consider these Japanese leaders to be ridiculous unstoppable killing machines, but they were still human, it's wrong to say that the Japanese were unbreakable. If the Allies did invade, chances are the Japanese would have surrendered after a little resistance seeing as they had already been bombed to shit already.

Was it certain that Japan would surrender quickly had the allies invaded? No, it was far from certain.. They sent men to their certain deaths for a futile fight that was long since lost (kamikaze). Why not end it in a cloud of smoke, a way that was assured of victory without losing any of your own men. I don't care what you say, the logical solution was to drop the bomb. And war is a world of logic, like it or not.

Well first they told Japan if you dont surrender now we will drop this giant bomb on you guys. Japan did not surrender so we dropped it. Then we told them hey guys we got another one we are gonna drop on you, you wanna surrender now? They did not surrender so we dropped the second bomb on them. We convinced them we had more atomic bombs (which we did not) and that we were gonna drop it on Tokyo, and this time they surrendered.

Well if follow the kill 1 save 10 logic, then yes it was necessary. But if you think not... Well lots of dead American soldiers

And it saved lots of Japanese civilian lives as well.