>>>The government was still refusing to surrender after the first one.
>>
>>This extreme attitude is impossible to argue against.
>>
>>First you state that the US doesn't target civilians, then when it is pointed out that you have a long history of it, you try to justify it. Wiping out 1/4 million civilians with two bombs can never be justified.
>
>In the case of ending WWII, I disagree. My statements were in the context of what was strategic under conditions of wars against other countries and compared to the strategies of terrorists. Would you still feel the same if the bombs that ended WWII had not been nuclear but conventional? Or do you just have a problem with the nuclear part?

I have a problem with killing civilians, by whatever method.

Between the two bombs, America signed the Nuremberg Principles, making such actions a crime against humanity. It also contravened resolutions of The League of Nations passed in 1938,

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#F

At no point do either of those give an opt out clause, because it would shorten a war. It was an illegal act.