Atomic bombings of Japan Necessary?

It would be mass murder if we invaded Japan as well.

But they would be slaughtering civilians en masse if they invaded. Now that would be a war crime according to your standards.

Ever read about what happened in the Phillipines?

That was a Colonial War about 50 years earlier. It was, if anything, the worst case scenario. I don't think you could say that would happen every time.

It would be like saying that if Britain had been the driving force occupying Nazi Germany they would've put the Germans in concentration camps because that's what they did to the Boers.

No his rational is, with a traditional invasion even more civilians would have died then the number caused by the atomic bombs. The standard bombing raids and offshore artilliary plus the urban combat that would of occured over all of japan and not just two cities, would have killed far more civilians, let alone japanese and amercian soldiers. Less death was caused by the two atomic bombs, therefore it was the right choice. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both important to japans war effort so we did not just target the cities for the sake of killing civiliansand casuing fear(like the germans did in the bombing of london).

First let me say that yes acording to the rules of war it's a war crime but the sad fact about this world is that the victors never get charged for what happens in war. During the war; war crimes were commited by both the allies and the axis but you never here about war trials for the allies because they won. I'm sorry if you don't agree but the rules of war really mean nothing because if your the victors you can get away with anything, just look at history.
"History is written by the victors"~ Winston Churchill

Can you tell me of any?

D3adtrap take it easy I just wanted to see what proff you had of such events taking place.

Japanese people would be forced to fight by the government. Almost all of Japan's population would have been massacered if we hadn't had dropped the atomic bomb. Oh ever here the expression "Sacrafice one life to save a million." That was baxically the exact same case except it was hundred thousands to save around 30 million.

If I were to kill Pol Pot, that would be considered justified, considering he will, by his faction alone, unattended in major international affairs, eventually kill a million people.

But these two bombs killing over a hundred thousand to save thirty million, well now, that is not right.

Consider this, Pol Pot hadn't attracted global attention and triggered multiple nations to fight intensely and reduce a people to nothing, which would lead to an invasion of his nation. Thus, he would be able to kill a million people.

Japan and the Empire it was had participated in this world war, and had triggered multiple nations to fight, and had been driven back. Once it was at it's death bed, the country still was holding on to it's nation's defence. The United States, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Britain and the Commonwealth would be able to contain them, and eventually sway their people to not fight for their government. There are multiple factors for this, one would be famine due to human influence. Another would be laws and orders that the Imperial government would enforce on it's people which would deteriorate the moral being of each Japanese civilian. But, the United States didn't give it the time, and instead, decided to lay waste to cities and the environment, probably causing more ecological, financial and agricultural damage than the Imperial government would have by enforcing the said laws.