JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
morality question.

To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
other children is justified, but that is just me.

There is also a question if a massive invasion of Japan with the was the
only option. Due to our overwhelming naval and air superiority we could
have taken over limited strategic sections for the basing of aircraft would
have had complete dominance over the Islands. Rather than taking large
areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
us if they chose. However the Japanese would most probably not have had the
infrastructure to move large numbers of troops to face our bridgeheads,
especially in the face of our air and naval superiority.

If they did manage to move in a large concentration of troops, then it would
have been ok to nuke em.

I think we could have looked at different options. We had already
successfully starved the Japanese for fuel. They had lost the capacity to
produce aircraft in any numbers. All they had was a reserve of obsolescent
aircraft for suicide attacks and these would have been ineffectual once we
established air bases on Japan.

There is no question the Japanese Army would have initially attempted to
starve its own people to feed itself, but there would be ways to get around
that and the Japanese people and much of its army would have probably risen
up against this as it would have been their families that were starving. We
could have also supplied humanitarian aid to Japanese civilians....the Jap
army could not be everywhere, especially when we established bridgeheads
that would have forced their concentration.

No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
Japanese hands.

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
far more morally easy to justify.

JMO
Al