Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?

[Cory]

Yes, of course they were. Every single argument against it is flawed and based largely on a lack of understanding of the circumstances of the time.

The atomic attack against Japan in 1945 saved both Allied and Japanese lives. A long siege would've have probably killed more overall from starvation and given the Soviets an opportunity to invade and take Hokkaido.

Also this idea that wasting a bomb as a "demonstration to intimidate them" is nonsense. Even after two atomic attacks against them they still barley surrendered (the vote on the high council was extremely close IIRC).

[Cory]

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.

Well, it was true.