Of all the stupid parroted cliches surrounding World War II, the "justification" for dropping Atomic Bombs on Japanese civilians has got to rank as one of the most annoying, most persistent, and most disgusting of them all. You know the routine: "We would have lost at least 100,000 men if we had to invade the mainland. The Atomic Bombs saved the lives of American soldiers."
It's time we lay this conscience-soothing falsehood to rest. Apart from the fact that it was FDR who set Asia ablaze in the first place by encouraging China to continue fighting Japan (which anyone who has read 'The Bad War' knows by now); and apart from the fact that FDR provoked and had foreknowledge of the justifiable Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor Naval Base (which anyone who has read 'The Bad War' knows by now); and apart from the fact that Japan in 1945 had been trying for months to negotiate an honorable surrender (which anyone who has read 'The Bad War' knows by now) - the argument (rationalization) for dropping not one, but two A-bombs in order to "save lives" is also morally invalid and extremely offensive, on its own - even if one hasn't read 'The Bad War'.
To illustrate both the moral and logical folly of the "bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved American lives" line of reasoning, let us go back to 1836 and revisit "The Battle of the Alamo", with a twist.
The Battle of the Alamo (February 23 – March 6, 1836) was a pivotal event in the Texas Revolution. Following a 2-week siege, Mexican troops under President General Antonio López de Santa Anna launched