Your question is not relevant to anything that I've stated, and is basically invalid, America having already won. I have maintained that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary to end the war as alternatives were available. That is true. You stated that they were necessary to prevent an invasion, that is false. You've stated the Japanese did not want to surrender, that is false. Did you actually know any of the historical context at all when you wrote these inaccurate statements?The requirement of "unconditional surrender" was used to extend the Manhattan project. The term "unconditional surrender" was used vaguely with regard to both Germany and Japan with multiple meanings. It was little more than a propaganda tool used to prolong the war so that nuclear weapons could be used. The weapon was always intended to be used, the Truman Administration knowing that the Japanese would never accept surrender of the Emperor, in Japanese culture being their divine ruler, a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu.
'On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.’ Allen Dulles, Chief of Office of Strategic Services in Switzerland.
"I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength." Secretary of War Stimson
The military echelon even accepted that the authority of the Emperor would be a useful to them.
"From a strictly military point of view, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider it inadvisable to make any statement or take any action at the present time that would make it difficult or impossible to utilize the authority of the Emperor to direct a surrender of the Japanese forces, in the outlying areas as well as in Japan proper." Chief of Staff William Leahy.
The targets were not selected for military purposes. They wanted to see what it could do to an intact city, most other cities having been destroyed by incendiary bombs.
After Nagasaki the Japanese sent a message to the U.S. administration that they would accept Potsdam "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." The response by Truman was that "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule that state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper".
The surrender in effect was conditional as the condition the Japanese wanted was that Emperor Hirohito, both Japan's monarch and a religious figure, was to keep his throne and not be subject to any war crimes trial. Emperor Hirohito was never tried for war crimes and remained on the throne as Japan's constitutional monarch until his death in 1989.
The use of nuclear weapons in WWII was for several of reasons, least of which surrender of the Empire of Japan. It was not so much the last shot in WWII as the first shot in Cold War.
The military and political elite knew it at the time, the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project protested its use. And historical retrospect shows the use was unnecessary.
"It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." General Eisenhower.
Because to show less regard for civilian lives would be bad PR and would probably amount to war crimes even the U.S. couldn't ignore.
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/
'“The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare.”
Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.
In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in the hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their 10 children and the family’s Sri Lankan maid.
On July 16, an Israeli aircraft fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing 11 members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five and seven.'
How much destruction and death does Israel have to induce for you to believe they have transgressed?
What do you actually think the most probable outcome of the current situation will achieve?