The tactic you deplore was originated by the Emperor's good friend and ally, Herr Hitler, and it is to them you should direct your blame. The US, Britain, and Russia did not start WWII, but we did see it ended together.
As far as any doubt regarding the differences between a war ended by double A-Bomb blasts vs. an invasion of the Japanese main island (the only real alternative) we might still be occupying that country and digging second and third generation guerrilla kamikazes out of their caves if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed in the manner they were. If you don't understand that then you don't know much about the character of the Japanese people. I don't believe there can be any doubt but that even another year of war would have resulted in millions more Japanese casualties.
Atrocities ? War itself is an atrocity. The best action in war is one which ends it the quickest.
To the several contentions that the Japs had planned to use civilians in combat, I reply that two wrongs just don't make a right. Again, a soldier's job is to kill, and to die if necessary. Not to make civilians die in his place. That's called cowardice.
The soldiers were not cowards -- they didn't make the call to drop the bomb, and it's only natural that they were relieved they didn't have to keep fighting. But the very idea that non-combatants should die so that combatants might live or get out of the military more quickly, is really ridiculous. If you have no moral objections to this, then I don't understand why you consider Waco to be such a big deal. I mean, hey, we kill a bunch of kids, and the bad guys are forced to give up, right? Just think of all those ATF lives that were saved.
To Labusiness: Jim Robinson is also a registered Democrat, so don't piss your pants laughing at me.