Hiroshima and Nagasaki Show of force or neccesary evil?

It was absolutely necessary. Without the use of long range bombing, the war could have lasted well into the 1950's and cost far more lives.

Think about the alternatives...

There is no way and island-to-island approach could have worked. It had already been proven that it would be to costly in time, lives, and resources to make any headway. We could also never win with such an approach due to the way our supply lines worked verses the enemy. As the vicinity was much closer to Japan, they could much more easily resupply their front lines with their direct internal lines. The US on the other hand, is forced into a long trans-Pacific supply lines that were under constant pressure from the Japanese navy.

Launching an assault from China/SE Asia or from Siberia would also force a time consuming land battle...just so we could get close enough to strike at the heart of Japan. And still then, we would be forced to use the same long supply lines that would be naturally less efficient.

A decisive strike to the head of the snake was necessary to both cripple and demoralize the enemy into submission.

I think for the American military it was tactically necessary.  The Japanese are one of the few cultures in the world that actually would fight to the last bullet and the last man as demonstrated though battles like Iwo  Jima.  Fighting in Japan would be extremely costly.

Whether it is was morally correct or necessary to drop multiple nukes, that is another debate. 

I agree it help ending this long war but still I think the usa could have won by other ways. They had the power of number.
Also, by showing they got this bomb, usa start cold war in a way.

I certainly agree with the tactical nessecity. Similarly there is the debate that intensive long range bombing could have had the same effect. A little known fac is that the firebombing of Tokyo took more lives then either of the two bombs did in one blow.

In retrospect its still questionable. Stalin sought the bomb after seeing its destructive power. I will debate the Siberia point though. Russia had nutralized most of Manchuria as it was and with a massive influx of manpower following the dissolution fo the eastern front, with time it could evry well have been accomplished over land.

I belive that from a tactical standpoint this was one of the most logical command decisions made in world war two. it definitively shortened the war and helped break the will to resist that the japanese people possesed.

However, from a moral standpoint this was a poor decision. the targets chosen were two urban areas loaded with non combatants, and i am of the opinion that since some of the non hardline japanese parliamentary members were considering pesuing peace at the time, dropping atomic weapons on a nearby desolate island, in a nonpopulated area, or on purely military targets would have been a better way to demonstrate the power we commmanded, and help end the war.

To sum up, I believe that the use of atomic weapons was a wise decision, despite the later cold-war backlash, but that our choice of targets was poor.

Unlikely. While there is some manpower and resources available, it would have been grossly malnourished compared to the Japanese. Russia was allocating the bulk of its resources toward Europe at the time, and it would take a long time to move enough forces to the other side of the world when the only access point was a railroad. The Japanese were also weary of the risks Siberia could pose so they deliberately positioned themselves to defend against it. Don't forget that they occupied northern China and could close on the only the Ally access point (Khabarovsk) on three sides. It would also take the Japanese 1-2 days to resupply their front lines whereas it would take a minimum of 6 days for Russia and the US. That also depends on seasonality, all it would take would be a bad winter for the Trans-Siberian railway (the only land based route) to be blocked for weeks, even months.

As has been mentioned before up above, it's a moral question.  I think the figure given by historians is a million American soldiers dead to take Japan by invasion.  Obviously the death toll from a land attack would have far exceeded that of the atomic bombs.

The question is though, how do you weigh the worth of a life during war.  A million soldiers vs. 220,000 civilians?

It's horrible, but I personally think we did the right thing and actually managed to save lives by displaying such overpowering force.

absolutely necessary. a terrible thing to happen, but it had to be done. as others mentioned, i agree that the war would have continued for an indeterminable amount of time and thus cost many more lives than these bombs did. the japanese were courageous and dedicated fighters that would have fought to the very end had we not used the atomic bomb. definitely a necessary evil.