Yes as horrible as the atomic bombs were, the alternatives were worse, and not just for the US and its allies, for Japan.
No one invades or drops nukes - The war continues, and Japanese die for longer in larger numbers, mostly from starvation, and fire.
The US (with assistance from the Brits, Australia, Canada etc.) invade - More Americans and allies die, and more Japanese die.
The US holds off, and stops the bombings - eventually the USSR invades, and Japan suffers under communism for 50 years. Also their invasion would be more brutal and involve more Japanese civilian deaths than either the atomic bombs or the likely result of an American invasion.
No one invades (and if the US stopped waging war, the Soviet decision to invade or not would not be controlled by Americans), bombings stop, sinking Japanese shipping stops - Much of China stays occupied, the war continues, fewer Japanese die in the short run, but they do keep dieing (esp. in China, but also from the disruption previous US and allied attacks have caused, from grabbing all the resources for the war effort, and from their attempts to attack us). The US, USSR, Britain, Australia, China, Canada, New Zealand etc. have to keep funding huge war machines to keep Japan in check, while Japan also puts much of its resources in to the war. More death and suffering in the long run. Perhaps allied resolve and watchfulness weakens and Japan eventually breaks out. Even if it doesn't the world is impoverished by all of this, and Japanese live under a brutal dictatorship for decades longer. |
