[alexander_busek]

The argument for the Bomb relies on two suppositions: 1. Our demand for unconditional surrender was morally justified. 2. An invasion of Japan was militarily necessary. Take away even one of the two, and it's just another act of barbarism in a war with many other acts of barbarism.

And...? Do you dispute that either of those two conditions were met?

Regards,

[Captain Walker]

Do you dispute that either of those two conditions were met?

I would argue that neither one of them was met.

What moral right did we have to insist that Japan agree to stop fighting so that we could impose our terms on the country?

We had complete control of the waters around the Japanese islands; by 1945, our submarines were far more effective in fighting that war than our bombers. (Was the country smart enough to bring the fight to Japan's front door suddenly going to have a stupid attack and decide we had to go into the house?)