Why are you doing this ?

There is little point in remembering just 1 atrocity of ww2 unless you are seeking to make some naive anti-american or anti nuclear point. But bear in mind the following:

1. The nuclear attacks brought the war to an end, an invasion of Japan would have killed millions and not thousands. They saved the lives of more people than they actually killed, however horrible the act of dropping them was, it did avert an even greater tragedy. It was meant to end war, it was not an act of genocide alongside say for instance Nanking or Auschwitz.

2. Japan is know a democracy because of the US.

Peacenik Quaker types fail to realise that however distasteful military action can be in some circumstances it has to be justified. Failing to do so will hand civilisation on a plate to the Hitler's, Hirohito's and Slobadan's of this world.

This previous seriously needs addressing/deconstructing!

"1. The nuclear attacks brought the war to an end..."

This is so untrue!
It is well documented that Japan was actually brokering a peace deal, even before the nukes were dropped, as they were economically and miltarily exhausted and knew that they couldn't 'win'.
Let's also not forget that by 1945 in Europe the Third Reich was very much on it's knees, defeated in no small part by the concerted military efforts of the UK and the US - and more covertly funded geurilla warfare in Nazi occupied territories.
In effect, the end was nigh for WW2 already, regardless of any country's Nuclear capability.

"2. Japan is know a democracy because of the US."

It depends on if you consider a country (with a what is effectively a fuedal economy) at the mercy of Corporate Market Forces a 'democracy' really, doesn't it?
Besides, how can you justify nuking to death so many hundred thousand people on the premise that it would be good for their country and economy!!??
That makes no sense at all - what use to the world is a radioactive wasteland??

"Peacenik Quaker types fail to realise that however distasteful military action can be in some circumstances it has to be justified. Failing to do so will hand civilisation on a plate to the Hitler's, Hirohito's and Slobadan's of this world."

Dear oh dear!

If you TRULY knew your history, you would know that all of the dictators you've just mentioned were clandestinely financially (and in many cases militarily) UNDERWRITTEN by so-called 'Western' powers, simply because there was money to be made from them - morals didn't come into the equation.
The only reasons these petty (and not so petty) dictators were later forcefully deposed is either because they'd outlived their economic or political purposes (see Saddam for details), or because they got too ambitious and started treading on toes that they 'shouldn't' have and going on landgrabbing jaunts (see also Saddam for details).
In practice, invading countries which 'Western' powers had a vested interest in.

To sum up, the U.S. dropped the H-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they wanted to firstly to prove to the world that they could and they would should anyone else tryand call their bluff, and secondly to assert their military and economic superiority over other nations that were also developing Atom Bombs (those at the time being Germany, Russia and the UK), effectively proving that they had won this particular arms race and everyone else had better watch out.
In many respects, where they dropped those bombs wasn't the point - just the fact that they DID.

Such are the ways of the REAL world!

I have no problem with criticism, but, at least make sure it is based on real-world historical events, rather than ill-informed reactionary suppositions.

Ped Ant is simply wrong. The war would only actually end when Japan agreed to surrender. Hirohito asked his 'cabinet' to agree to surender on the 7th August, they refused and only communicated their willingness to do so on 15th August after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan had actually 'lost' the war as early as 1943, when they withdrew from Guadalcanal leaving the US in control of the South Pacific but of course the war would go on untill they did actually surrender. In fact this 'defeated' nation inflicted considerable casualities on the US in fighting for the island of Okinawa in June 1945 after Nazi Germany had surrendered. Therefore in August 1945, whilst the Japanese main Islands were surrounded what could have been done to make their government surrender? The only realistic non nuclear option was to mount an invasion and that would have killed millions or enforce a naval blockade and starve millions? The dropping of the bombs negated either possibility.

The points you make about Japan not being a democracy are not worth commenting on. True the 'west' has waged war on former clients that have turned rogue such as Saddam and Noriega, but to say that the dictators I mentioned were all backed by the West is crassly ignorant. Hitler backed by the West? If anything it was the East as the USSR signed a non aggresion pact with him and invaded Poland in 1939. Slobadan backed by the West? The former Yugoslavian communist turned ultra serb nationalist. Hirohito emperor of Japan backed by the West? That's right he used planes supplied by the US to attack Pearl harbour in 1941! Not.

I learnt my history at University thanks not in a pub or wherever you learnt yours, we must agree to disagree.