the "persuasive tactic" to halt the Japanese war madness saved millions of lives. 
And the prize for understatement of the year goes to..
it is debatable see http://www.historyextra.com/feature/second-world-war/was-us-justified-dropping-atomic-bombs-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-during-second
I stated " yes hotly debated still" in my original piece, and they are. Historians are divided, but the very distinguished, highly respected, Sir Max Hastings is one that has calculated the German effort was handicapped by up to 10% of it's war production and general effectiveness, thus shortening the war and reducing the final death total. With the atomic bombs, that is something else. It is hotly debated by many as it was, and still is, highly controversial. No one can hide away from the fact that they were not only designed to stop the Japanese, by then, in a suicidal drive to win their war, but (mainly?) the Americans stamping their authority on the World; stating clearly they were now the super power and everyone had to recognise that. It was now the American century.
But that was no more in it's principle of the previous super power, the British Empire, having more dreadnoughts than any other nation, and being able to exert their will on all by just sending one of those ships to a foreign port.
Personally, to nail my flag to the mast, after reading much on these subjects, support the notion that it WAS justified. Both Germany and Japan had to be flattened to bring the war to an end, as the leaders of both were bent on a policy of Victory or death, with even Hitler branding all German people as traitors and cowards as they failed to halt the Russian onslaught from the East. The war lords of Japan had a similar attitude to Victory at all costs, and would not have stopped without being stopped. That is what I mean by the means justifying the ends; two wrongs actually making a right. We, in the West, live in freedom because of it.
Author
Topic: Drunk driver on BBC news (Read 10782 times)