About 1 1/2 million people were killed by the atomic bombs in Japan (2). it is estimated that around 4 million lives were SPARED by ending the war at that time, based on estimates on how long the war would have gone on.

Horrific? Certainly. Immoral? I disagree, considering it likely saved many more lives on both sides I'd say it was better that than attempting a conventional invasion. Conservative estimates put the figures for casualties on the Allied side alone at almost one million, they fully expected the first waves of the landings would take 95% casualties if they weren't completely wiped out. The Japanese military had plans on the books to use their entire civilian population to swamp the invaders (not much unlike Soviet penal battalions during the war or the later Chinese human wave tactics in the Korean War). It would have cost the Japanese even more innocent lives had the bombs not been used, possibly even resulting in total extermination which truly was the threat posed by the atom bomb, it sent the message to the Emperor that we were prepared to wipe them out totally without giving them any opportunity to fight back unless they surrendered unconditionally and immediately. As horrible as it is, cities became targets for ALL sides in that war as it was truly the first fully industrialized war and air power made it possible to reach those centers of industry. WW1 this was not the case, in fact behind the area of the trenches things were relatively normal and though bombing was first practiced then it was rather limited. By the time of WW2, aircraft and bombs had been developed sufficiently that long range heavy bombing of industrial areas was now viable. Cities were targetted for their industrial value but also for the demoralization and terror created by the bombing, unconditional surrender was the goal in both theatres and was practically required in the Pacific due to the fierce Japanese resistance. I do not think it was right, I think it was just the best option (of a selection of very poor options) in light of the information that was available at the time. JMO

no, the us/british bombing of dresden killed 130,000 people, in 1 day

No, there's many others that top that

1st-It's war and they refused to surrender. 2nd- It saved many japanese and american lives. 3rd- The Japanese treatment of prisoners of war was so terrible that even in a war it was unacceptable. They deserved it.

How old are you, MrSublime vision seeker? Seems like maybe you need a history lesson. Shall I have to fill in all the blanks for you from Pearl Harbor to Okinawa and the American and Allied lives lost. Those "civilians" were to be the Homeland defense if we had invaded. What happened on Okinawa would have been repeated, thousands of times over.

Yes, I think it was horrific, but the utilitarian would claim that it was moral. I tend to be a utilitarian.

My father was on an LCT in the South Pacific. I'm thankful that the bombs were dropped. Was it horrific? Yes. Immoral? No. WWII had many more civilian deaths than in Japan. How many millions of Russians died? More than 20 millions. Hitler killing 8 million, now that is immoral. He even killed his own citizens. The killing fields of Laos was immoral. Millions died there also.

No, but it was up there. You could argue that in war, morals are an afterthought. The American military was doing what it thought right in order to win the war. Certainly, instantly incinerating 150,000 old men, women and school children (the bulk of the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of the war) was horrific. Fire bombing Tokyo was also quite horrible but again, war is a horrible thing.