[Platapus]

Well the debate on whether it was "good or bad" to drop the atomic weapons on Japan has been going on since 1945 and will probably continue.

One thing I do want to point out is the fallacy that there were only two exhaustive and exclusive options.

1. Use Atomic weapons
2. Invade Japan.

There were other options being considered that warrant mentioning

1. Blockade and contain Japan. The islands of Japan were never "officially" blockaded. But through normal military anti-shipping operations, submarine and air forces effectively blockaded the islands of Japan. One option was to step up this blockade and contain the Japanese forces and influence until capitulation.

2. Invade Korea. This option would have been used in conjunction with the blockade option. Many of the heavy military industries, to include a nascent nuclear weapon program, were located in Korea. Invading and controlling Korea would paralyze what was left of the Japanese military industry and could have lead to capitulation.

3. Invasion and occupation of the island of Hokkaidō. Hokkaidō was less populated than the island of Honshū as well as less defended. An occupation of Hokkaidō would have allowed the US forces to post land based bombers and extensive fighter support for nonstop conventional bombing.

It is quite correct that the Japanese were ready to "fight to the death" but that would only apply if we allowed the war to go in that direction. It is most difficult for Japanese military and citizens to "fight to the death" if we don't directly fight them (classic Sun Tzu).

Invading the island of Honshū would have incensed the population and would have greatly boosted the influence of Prime Minister Tojo. It is worth noting that while Tojo enjoyed great popularity at the start of the war, by 1944 he had fallen out of disfavour with the government and the military.

A war of isolation, containment, and starvation without the patriotic fever of defending the motherland from direct invasion might have lead to the Prime Minister stepping down or being removed.

I won't get into whether it was good or bad to drop the atomic weapons on Japan. I just wanted to point out that there were other options other than

1. Invading Honshū
2. Dropping the Atomic weapons.

However, from the United States standpoint, there was one good reason for using the Atomic weapons on Japan.

People in the United States were getting real tired of the war. It was costing the US mucho money and lives and people were tired. FDR recognized that after almost five years, the citizens were losing patience with the government. If you review the newspapers of the time, it is surprising at how unpopular the war was in 1945. Things were not all that swell back home politically. The Democratic party, while willing an unprecedented fourth term, was garnering less and less popular votes every term. The use of the Atomic weapons were a viable way of bringing the war to a quick end.

It is possible that the decision to use the Atomic bombs was more political vice military.