I don't think its enough just to say yes it was justified / no it wasn't.
There's loads of arguments to say that it wasn't justified: you just need to look at the huge loss of life, the after effects of the bomb (i.e. high radiation causing cancer, birth defects etc).
On the other hand, nearly 55 million people died in World War II, and less than 0.5% of those died at Hiroshima. That 0.5% ended the conflict with Japan and undoubtedly prevented more bloodshed. Storming Japan itself would have resulted in a much, much higher death toll than the one we got at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On a purely objective level, i think there is some justification in those statistics, although on a more human level, I find the prolonged suffering of the people affected by those bombs absolutely horrifying. Its such a difficult question and to be honest, I don't think anyone will ever be able to come up with a truly definitive answer one way or the other.
Answered Sat 21st May, 2011 @ 17:33 by Vixxx92 Edited by Vixxx92 on Sun 22nd May, 2011 @ 19:04