Some of the highest estimates of death toll caused by both atomic bombs combined are in the low 200,000 range.

The Battle of Okinawa alone had nearly 200,000 military casualties and another 150,000 civilian deaths.[1]

People asserting dropping of the bombs was wrong in any way are divorced from reality. Their position is devoid of all facts.

To be blunt. Dropping of the atomic bombs was not just the right decision, it was the most humane decision.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#:~:text=Th....

You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII.

From an official US atomic historian, a survey of the breadth of opinion on the use of the atomic weapons, from just after until more recently: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u...

There are many entries there on many aspects of atomic weapons and a wealth of declassified contemporary material.

As you can see you're largely repeating one position of a broad field as if it were gospel and there were no other positions and no evolution of the debate.

Many of your points are those that came into being after the use of the bomb, back fitted proto Cold War era justifications.

There was relatively little thought put into using the weapons at the time other than a sense of urgency to field test two distinct designs resulting from the most expensive weapons development program in histrory that didn't produce anything useful until after the Germans surrended.

Hiroshimo & Nagasaki were to be bombed regardless, they were way down the punch list and followed on from 72 other Japanese cities destroyed via firebombing and conventional high explosives.

They were selected not for their importance (they were much further down the last than mid 70's) but because they were relatively untouched and made for good test sites for "just the atomic bomb damage".

One does not need to be a military strategy genius to comprehend the numbers. There is no point in arguing further on this topic. Your position is entirely divorced from reality and therefore might as well be entirely made up.

As an observer of this debate, I would say you're the one completely ignoring all arguments from the other side as "divorced from reality". It seems you're the one who is avoiding reality here.

As another observer of this debate, I disagree completely with brabel, and think that your assessment of your opponent's "arguments" is in fact correct: they're dismissing contemporary US estimates which are well-documented, and which we know were not even intended at the time to be shared with civilians as "propaganda" is hilarious, and divorced from reality. It's probably not worth debating the matter with these particular opponents.

My position, as expressed in my only comment in this entire sub thread, is that you should read more on the subject.

There is no "arguing further on this topic", that was my only contribution, and I reiterate it.

Circle back to the original material and the historic commentary on that material, it's not clear whether you have read any of it let alone grasped the breadth of it.

It’s not speculation. It’s basically common sense. How awful and long would a ground invasion of these areas have been? Would it even be possible? How many of your troops are you willing to sacrifice to spare the lives of your enemy’s civilians?

Why do you think a ground invasion was necessary? WWI finished without a ground invasion of Germany. Completely occupying enemy's territory was not a common way to end a war. The "normal" way was to end your enemy's capacity to fight, and then negotiate surrender. You can argue that the Japanese would refuse to surrender for a lot longer, but to think the "only way" to end their resistance was to either nuke innocent civillians (and I hope no one here thinks "there are no innocent" people, like they did at the time) or occupy the whole country on the ground seems to be ignoring basically every conflict prior and since then.

What are you talking about? There was absolutely a ground invasion of Germany.

It is literally speculation, in the literal sense of the word. Speculation, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary: the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain.

The question here is if japan would have surrendered without the Atomic bombs. There is not enough evidence for it being True or False.

Many modern historians claim that japan would have surrendered anyway because its military was in shambles. They hoped for a conditional surrender. The bombs were frightening, but didnt create more damage than the previous firebombings. The fact that the Soviet Union joined the was on the western flank of japan was probably the straw. It blocked all future possibilities of diplomatic conditional surrender by pleading with the Russians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bomb test sites and at least a hundred thousand innocent people died just to see the end-product of the most expensive weapons program ever. If Germany would have done it, all the people in the chain of command would have probably been hanged for war crimes.

Great. Now answer the question. How many of your own troops are you willing to sacrifice for the chance to avoid bombing Hiroshima?

Because we got to 350k casualties from just the US with the bomb.