I'll concede that I have a very liberal definition of "war crime". Although, there were people who objected to it at the time:
The Japanese may have been willing to surrender, but there were a number of other factors involved. For starters, the terms of the surrender weren't acceptable to FDR and Truman. They wanted complete and total surrender so they could rebuild Japanese society without an emperor. The terms the Japanese offered were less than acceptable. They didn't surrender after the first bomb, either. The Japanese were preparing for an invasion of their islands by arming every civilian. As Brian pointed out, the US was planning an invasion and expected casualties in the millions. At least half a million americans alone. The Japanese repeatedly fought to the death of every last soldier and were willing to kamikaze airplanes into ships, etc. There was no reason to expect any different when their homeland was the battlefield. And there was a rush on the americans' part because they did not want to share the invasion and later the spoils of war with the Russians. To do so would have meant a good chunk of Japan and perhaps China ending up as soviet satellite countries, like eastern european nations became during the cold war era. It was obviously horrific to drop even one a-bomb. I never want to see another one used, that's for sure.
You didn't just single them out as "war crimes", you said they were the "greatest war crime that has gone untried in international courts". That separates them from any and all of the other bombings that occurred during WWII because none of them were tried as war crimes. Firstly, I take issue with the fact that you think it's a war crime at all, but secondly I think it's false to think that it's worse than any of the other bombing raids made during that war. The Japanese were/are a proud nation. They were not surrendering. They were sending their young men on kamikaze missions, not just by plane, but also strapped to giant torpedoes. The United States and our allies were looking at major casualties if it came to invasion of the Japanese mainland, and rather than sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans, they decided that two messages were needed to end the war. Unfortunately it cost the lives of 200,000 Japanese, but the war ended right then and there. You can sit back and judge the actions of our grandfathers with your 21st century morals, but it's silly to think that the dropping of nuclear weapons should have been tried as war crimes at that time. War is ugly, especially when you're the soldier in the fox hole or the civilian living in the middle of a war zone. It's not our fault that Japan attacked us. It's not our fault that they refused to surrender until the bitter end. Do you object to the bombing of German cities? The English conducted night raids on German targets with little to no regard for human life. Their objective was to destroy the German will to fight, and that's exactly what Truman's intentions were when he had those two bombs dropped. They wanted the war over. Period. Would you have preferred that we firebombed those cities instead? How many would have died to fire rather than radiation? How many would have died on either side if we had invaded? You can play the 'what if' game all night, but the fact remains that we dropped those bombs and war ended. Mission accomplished.
Few humans learn from their mistakes. The Japanese should have learned that Karma is real, but they didn't. The rest of the world should have learned that nuclear energy is far too dangerous to be left in the hands of mere humans, but they didn't.
"Diplomacy" and "sanctions" and "embargoes" only work when wielded with superior cunning and forethought. Worked rather well for us during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and may have saved the entire world from destruction. In human relationships, brawn is an inadequate substitute for brains.
I made my case as to why I think it was the worse. Can you name a worse war crime that has gone untried? Look above for an admiral who opposed the bombing with his 20th century morals. Many of the bomb's developers also expressed regret after it was used on Japan. On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, President Herbert Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." Yes, especially considering the manner in which the allies did it. Japan was already a defeated country and Russian entrance into the war sealed the deal. The A bombs were unnecessary.
The unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor was unnecessary. Had we completely wiped out the entire populace of Japan I'd be okay with that too. "War crime" is a ridiculous concept. War is a crime in and of itself. It does not take 2 willing participants to have a war. The crime is committed solely by the aggressor and the victim cannot be held accountable for whatever actions he/she takes to defend themselves. There is no act too heinous to use when defending one's life, and no personal guilt should be attached to a matter not of one's own making.
That's easy. Pearl Harbor, an actual crime against humanity, rather than A-bombs used in self-defense.
That admiral was a moron. The "conventional bombs" were incendiary firebombs that torched Tokyo and killed over 100,000 people in one raid. You think that's better? Fire is just as indiscriminate as radiation. It doesn't care who or what it burns. It goes where the wind blows it. Go look up the San Francisco quake of 1906 and tell me what destroyed San Fran. It sure as hell wasn't the quake that decimated the city. I already told you I don't think it's a war crime, so why would I think of one that's worse? But since you asked, how about the murder of thousands of American soldiers who were being held in POW camps as the Americans advanced on Japan? That seems pretty bad. Does that qualify?
