In your view, were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? I argue yes.
I think this is an issue on which there are strong arguments on both sides. But after reading through the wiki and some other arguments, I think Truman made the right call at the time with the nukes. Overall, way more people would have been killed in land invasion than with the nukes. The nukes shortened the war significantly IMO.
But FDR and Truman fucked up by appealing for Soviet help in Japan. That was kind of strange, because Stalin would have only been helpful in a theoretical land invasion of Japan, and the U.S. precluded Soviet involvement with the nukes. Truman also bungled the initial postwar occupation in Korea, although the Korean war itself was largely successful in my view.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted for their military significance, not because they housed civilians. One was a major manufacturing center, and the other had a sizable military base. Not much care (pretty much no care) was taken to avoid civilian casualties, but that was not the primary intention, there was just extreme collateral damage. Yes, what happened to the civilians were horrible and they were atrocities, and intent doesn't change impact or make it any less important or severe. But the atomic bombings were not much different from what was already the established paradigm in war, on all sides (including actions taken by imperial Japan, Germany, Italy, and of course various allied powers).
A lot of people forget that more people were likely killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in either of the atomic bombs. Civilian causalities are of course horrible, but it's important to put the tombs in the context of the war: the bombs are not unique in the civilian casualties they caused, and should not be singled out.
Moreover, it is debatable to say that Japan was close to surrender, even conditional surrender. Japan tried to hash out some negotiations with Russia, but the two sides were never near agreement on the terms. And some of the terms that they wanted were unpalatable to the U.S. Those terms included maintaining control over their holdings in China and Korea as well as prosecuting war criminals internally. Neither of which was acceptable to the US. The Potsdam Conference never called for the complete dismantling of the Japanese Government.
It didn't call for immediate limits on it's power and occupation by allied forces. So it's not true to say that what Japan was willing to concede in its conditional surrender to Russia was eventually what was adopted by the U.S. While the U.S. didn't go as far as it could have during the occupation, and didn't drastically change some things (emperor not destroyed, part of the government remained intact during the occupation, etc.. esp as a way to combat communist China), there was a legitimate reason why the allies sought unconditional surrender over conditional surrender for Japan.
The occupation authorities kept Hirohito, true (although he was relegated to even more of a figurehead, a monarch with a ceremonial and symbolic role with no de jure governing authority or strong religious significance). In part to maintain some ties to the past and to have a governing native right-wing bulwark against the left. But the allies did severely prune back the Imperial state. While part of the unconditional surrender was that there was no guarantee that Japan would continue having the emperor as the head of state, the more important part was that the allies could dismantle the authoritarian military government that lead Japan in the effort to build an imperial.
And while some prominent figures in Japan were open to conditional surrender, many were not. For example, the Japanese military leadership was so committed to fighting on that even after the atomic bombings they attempted a coup d'état when the emperor wanted to surrender. Some civilian leaders, and Emperor Hirohito, might have been more willing to capitulate for a conditional surrender in the absence of the nukes, but had no real power in fascist Japan. A doctor treating the wounded at Hiroshima also said, “The one word—surrender—had produced a greater shock than the bombing of our city.” Therefore, some in Japan were open to conditional surrender, some were opposed to surrender at all costs, but almost everyone was 100% unconditional surrender, which is what the allies wanted.
So without the bombs, I doubt Japan would have surrendered without a fight. Part of it is definitely a cultural thing. So there would have most likely been some form of allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. Consider the Battle of Okinawa: 12,000 allied soldiers killed and 110,000 Japanese were soldiers killed. Plus anywhere from 40,000 to 150,000 civilians.
Now consider the option of launching a full scale land invasion of Japan. They would likely go the same way as Okinawa, except on a much larger scale. An invasion of the main islands would almost certainly have resulted in more deaths all around, including civilians. The amount of American casualties was estimated to have been from 400,000 to 800,000 and the amount of Japanese casualties was estimated to have been from 5 to 10 million in the event of an American invasion. And if we did a naval blockade of Japan, if the Japanese high command was stubborn, it's not unreasonable to think that the blockade would have lasted a long time and killed more Japanese civilians through starvation than the bombs killed.
Remember, hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Korean civilians were being killed each month by imperial Japan. Drawing out the war could have perpetuated the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Japan's controlled territory, even if took away to deaths caused by the atomic bombs. Japan wasn't on the level of Nazi Germany, but it did a lot of fucked up shit, and while both sides engaged in atrocities (the allied bombing of dresden, hamburg, and Stalin did fucked up shit, etc.), we can't absolve Japan of its brutal colonization of Korea (and that comfort women shit), and stuff like the rape the nanjing and unit 731 (with human experimentation) had to be stopped. Japan was an imperialist, an aggressor, and it was a good thing that the allied forces finished WWII in a swift manner.
While we have the benefit of hindsight, Truman did not. He was trying to make the best decision given what he knew at the time. I think that given all of that, it was fair for him to think it was the lesser evil to drop the bombs and end the war.
Regarding the USSR: the U.S. had multiple nukes in production for a possible prolonged bombardment of Japan, which Japan avoided by surrendering after Fat Man. And remember, other people in the U.S. government wanted to use more than two nuclear bombs on Japan.
If the U.S. wanted to, they had a solid 4 years where they had multiple nukes and the soviets had zip. So the U.S. could have just dropped one on Moscow sometime between 1945 and 1949 and said "Deal With It." And there would have been nothing that the Soviets could have done to stop it.
Same goes for WWI, by the way: the US was very restrained against Russia there as well. Right after the Bolshevik Revolution, the allies sponsored a small-scale intervention to topple the communists in Russia. The British actually had an alliance with Japan at the time (Japan sided with the Entente Powers in WWI). But the British went to the US instead to get an intervention going and snuff out the Bolsheviks (it's funny b/c the Japanese were all pissed that the British went behind their back and sandbagged in effort and on troop contributions)
And Wilson, being Wilson...he didn't take crushing the Bolshevik revolution too seriously and didn't contribute a lot of troops to the matter. And Churchill was still furious even years later for the missed opportunity to end the USSR in its infancy (in his views).
But basically, going back to the 1910s, the US has always been a little softer on Russia than people think. And remember, even during Wilson's presidency and in the 1920s, there was a red scare, with opponents of WWI, socialists, communists, and marxists being locked up and imprisoned in the U.S. Even with high anti-communist sentiment, the U.S. never went super tough on Russia.
Essentially, my argument is: yes, there could have been a better way (Japan was reeling, they knew they would lose, and possibly the invasion could have had less of an casualty figure than most people estimate). But the way the bombings served as a historically cataclysmic event leading to the realization that nuclear war is untenable, makes me think that this turned out to be the least bad of all possible worlds situation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times (2 within 2 days of one another) that humanity has ever used nukes. If we employed nukes later when they were far more powerful and devastating, the Cold War could have turned into an all out nuclear armageddon. If the bombs weren't employed in Japan, we would not fully know the toll of these weapons, and the deterrence that led to nuclear stalemate and parity might not have been as fully realized or adhered to.
As of now, I'm in favor of drawing down our nuclear arsenals with the ultimate goal of completely abolishing nuclear weapons.
Moreover, think about the aftermath of an allied invasion of Japan even if the allies ultimately beat Japan. The USSR would have definitely been intimately involved in the process. Think about how horrible it would be if Japan split into two countries, with North Japan being communist like North Korea or East Germany? Even if there was going to be eventual reunification, that would have been pretty messy.
America's full scale occupation of Japan worked out to everyone's advantage: a new constitution was written, establishing a robust liberal democracy. And Japan got out of the war making business with the U.S. providing for Japan's defense expenditures. Immediately after the war, Japan had crazy poverty, shortages, inflation, and unemployment, and the U.S. helped immensely with Japan's post-war economic boom. The U.S. helped turn Japan into a major exporter by getting in involved in GATT, helped rebuild infrastructure, and provided favorable exchange rates that prompted vast GDP growth, a growing and thriving middle class, and a very prominent manufacturing base in Japan that drove a boom all the way from the 1950s to the 1980s. The U.S. led occupation of Japan benefited Japan a lot both in the short term and the long run, and it was an an example of a successful intervention and occupation in my view.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Witness how we now kill the adversary by remote controlled drones.
Kind of diminishes the horrors of war for us.
Ya know, put everyone's name in a lottery and then execute a certain number of Americans so it's all "fair" and stuff.
Right. Atomic bomb is nothing like a firebomb!
I don't believe the atomic bomb was devised as a means to frighten. It was developed to kill a pantload of people. Sadly, it also fucking decimated infrastructure, let lingering disease, etc. (Remember the 'neutron bomb' that was to be developed? It was designed to kill people without destroying buildings! That's fucked up but there it is)
Second thing is when you say "..had the war ended less decisively, WW3 would have been inevitable" This is speculative at best.
Well one other thing: you're forgetting the Cold War. We didn't become king of the planet right after WW2.
Some other stuff swirling around in my head, but that's a first pass.
Never complain about cloudy days, folks. 
Germany knew we had the bomb. They were sick of thousand bomber raids. They choose the quick route, after Hitler allegedly committed suicide. They knew we had that bomb. So take your condescending attitude somewhere else. You could NEVER teach me a thing about History of the the FU world or this nation built on genocide and slavery. Take it somewhere else and park it. You're illegally parking here. 
try to learn something this time. I'm done with you. I'll give you this little tidbit. Norwegian Heavy Water Plant sabotage.... They were working on one also. Now I think if the monster had gotten it, he would have wanted to use it on white people. He was rather insane and an hate filled beast. I don't know if his generals would have allowed that, cowed as they were or not. Been studying for many, many years. See ya!
born 1948....mother who went through the war in Germany. I have a friend who is still with us, bless her heart, who with her family were in Sudetenland when Hitler rolled in. They did have to flee given the fact that her father had rallied against the germans "annexing" Sudetenland. And they had to keep moving around until her father died during the war. Another story altogether. She married a german soldier, she was 'safe'. I know a little bit about it also. The bomb was "leaked" to the germans who counted and they were looking for a way to get rid of the monster. He did them a favor when the russians had surrounded Berlin. I don't see any difference in Dresden or Tokyo myself. A few more of those and Japan would have surrendered, I think. Just an informed guess, true. The use of those bombs on the japanese civilian population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime of immense proportion. No doubt. The U.S. did know about the concentration camps and did not one thing to stop them until the war reached germany. As far as the scientists, I can't blame them. They knew about Auswitch, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau ect.......
I just don't believe that Germany, no matter how long the European Theater had remained active, would have ever been nuked. Just can't see it given the clannish nature of certain groups no matter what type of adversarial relationship they were having. No, Truman, nor do I think Churchill, even with the London bombing, would have acquiesced to the use of the nuke, either one, on Germany. They would have used the 1000 bomber raids still. With the threat, again with photos and possibly film of Trinity to stop the war, if as you postulate, it had continued. Truman also.
I love studying war, because it is the one thing humans have been doing to each other since time immemorial. I am fascinated by our ongoing beastly nature. Yes, I saw prime example in my 'war'. At least I can converse with someone who does know what they are talking about. Is refreshing.
I linked it again, for a refresher. Last line, so true. Sad but true. Because threats real, contrived or imagined are scaring and killing thousands of people in this world every day of all different races and cultures. I live in america so my loyalties and criticisms are reserved for our times. I am a realist and know that every continent has people of the same race, culture and religions killing and terrorizing each other in large numbers. That's why I know it will never stop until the ends of this planet and it's human inhabitants. Actually, I got into this. It will get me going again, just to keep the 67 year old brain juices flowing and synapsis sparking. Have a good one.
in Hiroshima for hundreds of thousands of people, belies this little treatise of yours. Bit is typical of the rationalization(s) of those who don't understand the reality of personal pain, or really, it seems, don't give a damn. I say NO!!!! Simple rejection of your long winded rationale? The Japanese were ready to surrender. The "victors" just wanted to see the effect of this terrible weapon on human beings, and who better than the "japs".....
While Dresden was one thing, horrible as it was, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different for very important apparent reasons.
an attack to see just how the bomb would affect an "inconsequential" race. Both bombs. You're watching too much TEEVEE, also. You are also VERY TYPICAL of the people who rationalize(d) that the use of the atomic bomb was/is a good thing. Keeps you at the top of the totem pole, right?. God Help the people who get in the way of the privileged of amerika. And that has always been the fact. From native-American genocide, to slavery of black people, to that usage of a weapon of mass destruction in nuking the yellow people, there is a pattern there. The only nation to have ever done that since the start of the nuclear Age. Nothing to be proud of. They were ready to surrender. A little more talk, maybe a threat, with photos/film from Alamagordo Trinity test site. Boom it would have been over. They privileged of that time were looking for the effects on people and how it would affect them down the road. They were an "inconsequential" people who were test subjects to the privileged. Period. Worried about attacking Japan. They KNEW they would not have to do that. The Japanese were on the ropes, hands down. Typical privileged rationale of the 'top dogs'....
So I'm quite aware of what was going on at the end of WWII.
Before the bombs, around 30% of the Japanese war council wanted to surrender. It wasn't until after the second bomb that they got over 50%.
"A little more talk" would not have moved that. A film of a big explosion would not have done that. And "a little more talk" would also translate into a lot more dead from firebombing and starvation. Because it is far more noble to incinerate civilians with conventional weapons, and let other civilians starve.
No. No. No. Yes, the Japanese govt and military committed horrible acts, but the populace had little if anything to do with it. My mom was one of them. They had no idea of the atrocities perpetrated in their name. They did not deserve to be punished, especially like this. 
if it makes you feel better....
..........................no, you are wrong. They were effectively defeated. Two bombs were always planned.....nothing proves your point. Everyone seems to forget the pattern of this country when dealing with people of color. I can't miss it. Many of you can and do, on purpose, trying to salve it over with moralistic, high ground BS, when that was the lowest form of war crime ever. We had firebombed Tokyo, driven the Japanese soldier back to the mainland of their country. They were defeated and we would never have had to "invade". The privileged at the time were looking for effect on the "yellow people". Please the history of this country proved that to me in regard to this nuking of civilians, twice. Go sell it to someone else. There are plenty on here jumping on that bandwagon you're pulling with that tricycle.
my points stand. Nuking those Japanese cities was a war crime. Period. You're entitled to your facts. You damn right I'm entitled to mine. thank you.................I know what americans are about, especially the privileged ones. Truman was a racist and a bigot. Period. In the WH, his only description for POC that he used when he commented on same POC was n***** this and n*****that. I know why he nuked Japan. And any person who knows the reality of the history of this nation and it's leaders and culture does so also.
...and? Could be? Was.
over 50 million dead.
Skeleton of a Japanese atomic bomb victim, Nagasaki, Japan, by Bernard Hoffman, September 1945
Tens of thousands of people, flesh vaporized from their bones in a millisecond.
http://photosofwar.net/tag/atomic-bomb-hiroshima
