Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?

[Velasco]

Good side of the nuclear weapons: no direct conflict between superpowers after 1945.
Korea, Vietnam (...) and Afganistan are small countries.

You can make at least two new polls with that.

1) Are proxy conflicts between superpowers morally justified?

2) Was Agent Orange morally justified?

3 (Optional) Was there a connection between Osama Bin Laden, the US and Afghanistan? Was morally justified supporting that guy?

Claiming that there was a "good side" in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... or Dresden and Tokyo for that matter... Japan was already defeated in August 1945, as it was Germany in February of that year. It was only a question of time.

[Velasco]

Yes, that's the usual argument. However, I wonder if an invasion of Japanese mainland was absolutely essential in order to make Japan surrender, sooner or later. For instance, there is a 1946 report:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Another question is the timing, the coincidence with the invasion of Manchuria by the Red Army, which took place between Hiroshima and Nagasaki but was previously planned in accordance to Tehran and Yalta agreements. Actually, there's controversy about the comparative importance of the bombings and the Soviet invasion in the Japanese surrender. I really don't know which event weighed more, but at the very least I think we should not endorse the 'official version' without further ado. On the other hand, the Cold War was already in the first stage. For some reason, Truman was anxious and expectant about the result of nuclear tests at Alamogordo while meeting with Stalin at Postdam.

[Velasco]

It's plausible to think that the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido would have hastened Japanese surrender to the US. Nearly everything is possible when we speculate about counterfactual scenarios, if you think about it.

[Velasco]

Here's a Truman quote:

"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

It seems that the Americans largely had completely dehumanised their enemy by this stage to the extent they had convinced themselves that the Japanese were monolithic and would never, ever surrender without being hurt.

I think that was probably a crucial aspect, in order to justify massive bombings and the final decision. Racial prejudice (few would disagree, given the existence of internment camps in American soil) and dehumanization. Good point.