>>>The two bombs were the shortest way to end the war, with the least amount of casualties. It was a phenomenal success.
>
>At least partly because the victors write the history books. Here's what Szilard (one of the Manhattan Project leaders) subsequently had to say:
>
>Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

Do you have any clue what was happening in Japan at that time?

Perhaps you should look into the firebomb attacks that killed more than the 2 atomic bombs in a single night. see http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm - lots of other sources.

Were were in a much better position to sustain more firebombing attacks in the coming months than we could nuclear strikes.

Problem was, the Japanese weren't going to surrender.

Too bad.