Even within what you admit is a great deal of the truth though it is garbled by spin spun originally after the deed by a cadre of questionable fellows in the Truman administration.
The Nagasaki atomic bomb was twice as powerful as Hiroshima. The claim of the Truman administration was that it was to neutralize Japanese military assets in Kyushu that were massing. The claim of military assets as the target in Nagasaki has always been maintained by those who defend the Truman administration. The lie of it is that the bomb didn't touch Mitsubishi, but it wiped out the Japanese Roman Catholic motherland, murdered thousands of innocent Roman Catholic children, women, men, lay, religious, and priests, and to top it off destroyed the largest Christian Church in Asia.
That you believe the Truman administration's actions condemned by Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council were justified and that you believe said condemned actions accomplished the goal of saving innocent and combatant lives whilst you acknowledge yourself to be Roman Catholic is a tribute to the enormous failure of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of America to teach anything at all at the parochial level in the last forty years whether it be general theology or the moral law. I am horrified.
So there is a lot of horror to go around. The difficult question is how to stop the horror and the Church constantly strives to be a force for just that.
My discussion is in keeping with this on its most fundamental teaching of our faith.
The lie of it is that the bomb didn't touch Mitsubishi, but it wiped out the Japanese Roman Catholic motherland "
This is not a lie. It was targeted by sight through a brief hole in the clouds. These were not smart bombs. To think the U.S. intention was to kill Catholics, well beyond the pale and beyond serious consideration.
You are correct that saturation and firebombing had been justified on very shaky military grounds. (Saturation bombing was a bit different - military targets could not be hit without it.) Our enemies of course felt no such need. But, yes, the military justification was really to cause the enemy the greatest harm and force his capitulation.
Now, there is one other possibility to end the war with less suffering still. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it. It's only seen in hindsight, it may well have been impossible to execute, however, had a intensive effort been made, it could have brought an even better resolution to the horror.
So that I can understand your perspective on this subject better: Were/are you also opposed to the Reagan defense buildup, the Gulf War and the current War in Iraq?