Before a conclusion can be made on this question, we must first analyze two distinct issues.

1. Whether at the time US leaders believed they had no choice but to use the Atomic Bomb.

2. Whether the weapon had to be used and without notification and bombing the 2 cities were necessary.
   

   US leaders were aware they could almost certainly end the war before an invasion and without the weapon. As Eisenhower, Leahy, Bard, and many others were repeatedly to use, the hurried use of the Atomic bombs was not dictated by overwhelming military necessity.

   It was almost impossible to issue a much more explicit warning and to attack a non-urban target first. There had been a less intense rush to end the war before the Russians came in, the issue of a second city might well have been posed more thoughtfully. Certainly, the bombing of Hiroshima is "debatable" but that the bombing of Nagasaki was "unnecessary".

   War would probably have ended before a November landing suggests that the bombing of Hiroshima was nonetheless understandable. Related to this, it is often claimed that American leaders were guided solely by a determination to save as many lives as possible by ending the war as surely and quickly as possible. Karl Compton wrote in the Atlantic Monthly "I believe, with complete conviction, that the use of the Atomic Bomb saved hundreds of thousands - perhaps several millions of lives, both American and Japanese, " Official estimation put the number of 46,000 as the likely casualties in the unlikely event of a full invasion in 1946.

   The use of firebombs in other US raids killed as many people as the bombs of Hiroshima. A firebomb raid on Tokyo in March 1945 killed 80,000 civilians in a huge firestorm; similar to the people killed in Hiroshima. The dropping of the Atomic Bomb was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.

   The issue where Japanese had not only great physical strength but also inner strength. Japan had a larger army and this supports the use of the atomic bombs since it prove that there would have been many more deaths if the Americans had been forced to invade Japan. This brings us to consider the issue of the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers. They would rather die than surrender. Didn't the Japanese used Kamikaze attacks when they ran out of conventional ways to fight the Allies? Can we not guarantee that the Japanese would even fight hand to hand, even use swords, spears to fight the enemies! This we cannot tell, but I can sensibly say that the dropping of the Atomic bomb would save these innocent lives from being taken.

   Also, Japanese reluctance to surrender raised the prospect of costly seabourne landings by the Allies. This above all persuaded the American to use the new atomic bomb.

   Hearing only one side of the story, I believed that we should at least hear what is mentioned about the other side of this controversial issue.

   The bombs could have been dropped where they would not have caused so many deaths. The Atomic bombs had to be dropped somewhere. But if the bombs were not to inflict any damage, why drop it?

   The Japanese navy ceased to exist by the time the bombs were dropped and they had practically no fuel left for their armed forces. "With or without the atomic bombs .Japan was finished, because her ships, aircraft, tanks and vehicles could not move. They had no fuel!" Japan was no match of USA.

   The Americans were warned by the threat of Communist Russia. Truman, the new American President did not trust the Russians as much as Roosevelt and he was worried about the spread of Communism in Europe and in the Far East. He wanted to end the war as quickly as possible to stop the further spread of Communism. Gar Alperzovite's "Decision to use the Atomic Bomb" extracts "throughout the spring and summer of 1945 American officials developed their thinking on the use of the Atomic Bomb in close relation to the planning of US diplomacy towards Soviet Union."

   In conclusion, I feel that it is justified in the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. However, there can never be a clear-cut answer - "Yes" or "No" to this question. Since 1945, this had been a controversial issue and will continue to be one until the end of mankind.