You are completely ignoring that the Japanese ambassador in Moscow was instructed on July 13 to approach Stalin to with the message that Japan was ready to surrender. This instruction can only be send if the government has taken a decision. So you are wrong about the deadlock.
And you are completely ignoring that in spite of the Russians declaring war on Japan, in spite of two cities undergoing atomic attack, and in spite of regular conventional bombing resuming, the Japanese cabinet, in a meeting on August 13, 1945, was deadlocked on the issue of surrendering. Care to explain how that makes the Japanese government united in its desire to surrencer? Were it not for the Emperor's unusual direct interference, the cabinet would have remained deadlocked and the war would have continued. And even with the Emperor coming down in favour of surrender there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender from being broadcast.
These are not signs of a government united in its desire to capitulate.
So what were these conditions that justified your kind to slaughter 200,000 innocent people when you already knew that a surrender at least was in the making.
It's called war. People get killed during them. Whispers of surrender do not equal surrender. An unequivocal broadcast of the intent to surrender and the cessation of hostilities equals surrender. I would have thought that obvious.
I... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ...
Anyone with even a trace of rationality knew Japan had lost the war. That had been clearly obvious with the taking of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and obvious since Japan's defeat at the Battle of Leyte Gulf the previous October, which had finished off most of what little navy Japan had left. And yet the Japanese stubbornly refused to admit they were beaten and continued to fight for months and months.
They continued to stockpile weaponry and supplies in anticipation of an American invasion of the home islands. They had in reserve between 5,000-9,000 aircraft, and the fuel to fly them, and intended to expend these aircraft in mass kamikaze assaults on any invasion fleet. The island of Kyushu had been heavily reinforced as the Japanese had correctly deduced it was to be the first site of any American invasion. The Japanese continued to train millions of its civilian population to serve as militia, planning to expend them in mass human wave attacks on any landing site.
These are not the actions of a nation which has accepted its defeat.
So, what were the conditions, according to you, that justified the slaughter of 200,000 innocent civilians?
As I have pointed out to you before, in a state of total war between industrialized nation-states, the idea that civilians are not an integral part of the war effort is sheer nonsense. True, they don't fight directly. But they sure as hell make the war possible by their economic efforts. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. This relationship has always been true throughout human history, but it is even more applicable to the kind to total war fought between industrialized nation-states, since industrialized societies have a vast capacity to constantly produce the weapons and personnel of war.
Hiroshima, incidentally, was not some idyllic, tranquil paradise. It was the headquarters for the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army. The city was also home to large depots housing military supplies, and was a key shipping and communications centre. These attributes made it a military target.
Lastly, in legal terms, there were virtually no more civilians in Japan. The conscription act passed by the Japanese cabinet in June of 1945 meant all Japanese males between 16-60 years old and unmarried females 17-40 years effectively became members of the national militia.
