Atomic bombings of Japan Necessary?

Whoops, I was wondering whether or not I'd be right, I knew the number 'million' was in there when I first heard of Pol Pot though.

Regardless of that mistake, my statement still stands.

I was looking into the cases you showed me D3adtrap. The first case about the Dachau massacre states that "General George S. Patton, the recently appointed military governor of Bavaria, chose to dismiss the charges." The second case about the Biscari massacre states that one man got life in prison but "Captain John T. Compton was court martialed for killing 36 POWs under his charge. Relying upon the respondeat superior legal doctrine, Compton defended his actions by claiming that he was merely following orders from his superiors. The investigating officer and the Judge Advocate declared that Compton's actions to be unlawful, but the court martial nevertheless acquitted him. The last case about the Malmedy massacre was comited by the Germans not the allies as it states "The Malmedy massacre trial (U.S. vs. Valentin Bersin, et al.) was held in May–July 1946 in the Dachau concentration camp to try the German Waffen-SS soldiers accused of the Malmedy massacre of December 17, 1944.

Well, in that case, over a hundred thousand means near what you had said, a quarter of a million.
Although, thank you for the clarification.

Ok. If somebody told you
" there are 2 ways to make the enemy surrender. I will not tell you what they are but will tell you the statistics. The first way involves about a couple million deaths on our side and a couple million casualties on the enemy's side, and it is not guaranteed this will be successful. The second way to end the war involves 0 casualties on our side and 250,000 casualties on the enemies side and the war will end immediately."

Now which way to end the war would you choose?

How would this theoretical battle start?

Am I a barbarian? because I don't see any academic thought put into this.

Please post something logical concerning warfare when I view this thread in the morning, or else, there is no use in making another circle in another thread, yet again.

No what I am showing you is why it was better to drop the atomic bombs. You are killing a couple hundred thousand to save a few million. That is completely justified.

Would you rather have 4 million people die or 250,000 people die?

The Japanese were drafting practically everybody, man or women that was able to fight.

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/inv/w2ij-ket.html

I would also like to point out the bombings of Tokyo (In one night) killed more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Sly is right. The Japanese have been practicing this kind of warfare since samurai. The Emperor would have forced the people to fight.

It all depends on what the emperor of Japan said, if he said fight then the country would have fought to the death, if he said give up (they would have given up) But i would like to remind everyone for the majority of the war the military had the emperors ear, and the majority of generals wanted to keep fighting just to kill more westerners.

I say it's justified,wse were going along with the attack not to long. now, ibelieve both were unnecessary, since the japanese navy, being destroyed as it was, couldnt stop the american navy blockading the islands of japan and constant bombing, no atomic though, until necessary. This is very harsh in the sense of you are starving the people.

The bombings werent the answer, just a means to peace.