No, but our parents and grandparents were a bit nicer than theirs.
This must the silliest ongoing debate in the Dope over the last 10 years +.
So the options are ending the largest, most gruesome, bloody war in world history in a) four days, or b) wait and continue the war for many months or potentially years so a million or more people can die?
And some want to choose b? What the F?
This is a historical no brainer. End the fricken war! Stop the destruction, pain and suffering. Why do people want this war to go on and on and on?
I think it’s a form of survivor guilt. You’re fighting an enemy who in your eyes, is clearly beaten, but won’t give up. They keep fighting, and fighting, even though there’s no way they can win. You wish you could get them to give up without hurting them more, but you can’t. So finally, you take this bleeding, weakened, but still swinging opponent and break his spine. And later continue to wish he had just given up when he should have, and continue to wonder if there was just one more thing you could have done.
Ask any Marine, Sailor or Soldier in the Pacific theater just how ‘defeated and ready to surrender’ the Japanese were and you might get a different answer that Leahy. Along with some choice curse words.
A simple examination of the Japanese record during the war shows Leahy to be completely off base.
Reminds me of a personal story.
I knew a guy. His wife was asian. He was a Bronks kinda guy that relocated at retirement to the south. After a few years down here even he said he hated yankees 
Anyway, long story short he and his was were doing their annual trip to see her relatives. Of course they ended up at some point on a plane headed that way filled with Japanese. Some sort of curfuffle ensued. He got pissed because he suspected that plenty of people on the plane (including troublesome fellow passenger and flight attendants) were playing the “we don’t understand English” card.
Well, at some point it was too much, and in a big Bronx accent he proclaimed:
Shit like this is why I am glad we dropped the bomb!
Supposedly things got real quite on the plane after that
Your description brought to mind the scene from The Last Samurai in which Tom Cruise receives a brutal bamboo-sword beatdown from Hiroyuki Sanada. 
Well in 2011 they made it mandatory in all Japanese schools from the 5th grade on. Prior to that I’m pretty sure that all high school students “learned” it sort of like how we learn French in high school I suppose.
Actually I think it has more to do with the (deservedly) bad rep that atomic weapons have these days. So that people who recognize that the current use of atomic weapons would be unmitigated evil extend that view to our fore bearers.
But two things are different now than they were then:
First, with multiple parties having massive atomic arsenals we recognize that the use of a single atomic bomb in war could lead to retaliation that could end mankind. Obviously that wasn’t the case back then (or we wouldn’t be here).
Second, total war in which civlian population centers and industries are targeted has fallen out of style. As others have said, you can’t single out atomic weapons as a uniquely barbarous tactic as compared to other bombing campaigns carried out in WW2 (the fire bombing of Tokyo and the leveling of Dresden). The main difference between the atomic bomb at what we were already doing was that it took a single plane to deploy (as opposed to a fleet of bombers) and the additional damage due to radiation which frankly wasn’t well understood at the time. It may be reasonable to argue whether or not the total war strategy taken by the allies was ethical but that is a whole different thread.
And not only conventional bombing, but conventional land warfare also leveled cities.
Look at places like Warsaw and Berlin, after two armies had fought over them for a while.
If allied forces had landed and fought for Hiroshima, it would have been destroyed in much the same degree as after the bombing.
Starving the populace would, at least, spare much of the buildings, houses, roads, and so on. But that’s getting down into Vendikar v. Eminiar warfare. And Stalinism.
From what I’ve read it seems like the least bad of a whole heap of bad options to conclude the war. Opposition to it usually hinges on the idea that Japan was just about to surrender, but history doesn’t bear this idea out. Japanese preperation for the invasion, Operation Ketsu-Go was predicated on the idea that the Americans would accept more favourable peace terms to Japan (peace, not surrender) if enough casualties were inflicted.
It is telling that even *after *Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war (just as necessary, perhaps even more so, than the bombs in my view - the Soviets absolutely pasted the Japanese in their invasion of Manchuria) there was an attempted army coup to prevent the broadcast of the Emperor’s surrender speech.
The one thing I’d possibly do different is make it more clear in the Potsdam Declaration that the United States could live with keeping the Emperor in a purely ceremonial role.
Apparently new scholarship says that it was the soviets that caused them to surrender and not the bomb.
I have often heard that.
While the Soviet Union fought bravely in WW-II there were a surprisingly low number of them who could fight in 100 million degree weather.
What would have triggered Operation Dropshot?
Why couldn’t it be both combined? That seems to be what the Emperor was getting at.
Emphasis added.
A few years ago I read Polmar’s Codename: Downfall. http://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Downfall-Secret-Japan-And-Dropped/dp/0684804069
IIRC once the effects of the bomb were known the invasion plans for the Japanese islands were updated to take them into account. One plan called for the use of nine nukes - three at each of the main invasion areas.
At each invasion point, the first bomb was to be a night airburst high over enemy lines after several other devices fitted with sirens and flares were dropped, this was in order to get as many soldiers as possible to look up, thereby blinding as many troops as they could.
The second bomb was to be targeted at the beachhead itself to clear a path for the invasion (and yes, that would have meant sending allied troops through the blast area) and the third was to be aimed inland at supply and reinforcement points behind the beachhead.
Note: my grandparents and mother were in Japanese POW camps at the time and almost certainly would have been starved or worked to death if the war had gone on much longer.
Wow.
I’m definitely in the majority here.
My high school U.S. History honors project was on President Truman’s decision to use the A-bombs on Japan. I have no doubt that it was the least bad option available to him, and that it saved many more lives than either a blockade or an invasion. Japanese diplomats had put out some peace feelers, yes, but the generals and admirals were still in charge, and they were nowhere close to surrender. Hell, it wasn’t until after word came of the second bomb that the Emperor spoke up in the Supreme War Council and said it was time to make peace, and even then, as noted above, there was an abortive military coup to try to continue the war.
The Russians never intended to fight Japan even though they were in their back yard. The United States had to haul everything across an ocean to do so which was a massive logistical undertaking.
Russia declared war on Japan 3 days after the US dropped the first atomic bomb which effectively ended the war. Nothing the Russians could do after that would have made the tiniest of difference.
The Soviets declared war eactly three months after Germany surrendered, which is what they had agreed to do at Yalta. They had assembled a force of more than a million troops during that time. As soon as they declared war on Japan they attacked Manchuria on two fronts.
It’s okay to believe the atmoic bombs were necessary and still acknowledge the U.S.S.R’s role.