While it is not ideal to kill anyone the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
The ignorance in this thread is astounding (and also disgusting).
The top brass in the U.S. military agreed that the bombs were not necessary for the Japanese to surrender, and that using the bombs had absolutely no real strategic value to ending the war. The Japanese would have surrendered (and did) when Russia invaded Manchuria.
The bombs were dropped because the U.S. was vehemently racist against the Japanese, and because Truman wanted to show off his new toy to the Russians. He figured that using the bombs would deter Russia from expanding communism while also preventing Russia from entering the war against Japan and getting a piece of the inevitable peace treaty.
Using the atomic bomb was horrible. It was unnecessary. Japan would have surrendered (and again, did surrender) when Russia entered the war and the U.S. knew it just as well as the Japanese did. The bomb was used to prevent Communist expansion and because of racist ideologies.
If you truly believe that the atomic bombs were used for any sort of "noble" purpose like "saving lives", then you need to reexamine your history and your conscious.
- - - Updated - - -
Is it such a hard concept to grasp?
"I just wanted them to hand us our award! But they were just talk!, talk!, talk!......" - Wrathion
This is basically the "OMG NO FLYING TIL 6.1" or "LFR IS TEH SUCK" thread subject of General Off-Topic.
Not at all, they could've been used a number of times since then to end wars early and prevent more deaths. I support nuking anything to end wars early.
If you are going to cite this as your argument you need to address the entire concept of city bombing for the entire war by all parties and not restrict it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, the reason those cities were on the list of potential targets is that they were still relatively intact, many other cities (such as Tokyo) were not considered viable targets because substantial percentages of the cities had already been effectively destroyed by earlier bombing campaigns.
"What do you consider your greatest fault?"
"I don't think honesty is a fault."
"I don't care what you think."
So killing 110 000 japanese civilians who are not guilty of anything other than living in the country at war with the U.S. is a better strategy than fighting it's trained soldiers who mostly know that they may be getting in to?
Just counting lives, then we would settle almost every war with massive weapons and killing mostly civilians because these acts scare off enemies.
Would you like a country who your country fights to bomb your city killing your friends and family "for the greater good"?
Yes, yes they were.
You might aswell just kill everyone with mustard gas and make sure people that do survive cannot procreate.
A Atomic bomb is a terrible, nasty bomb.
http://www.twitch.tv/mifuyne , livestreaming LoL/WoW/Skyrim/BF4