Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in WW2 justified?

A discussion between two "experts." ("X" - an unknown and "spurt" - a drip under pressure.) Sorry, I can't post this without levity. There are those on RP who see little humor in anything and they are likely to inflict us with their moribund views merely to oppose my position in this argument.

Of course, the use of the nuclear weapons was justified. It was necessary to save lives, both Japanese as well as American. Anyone who has visited Okinawa and stood atop the cliff where Japanese mothers threw their children to their deaths and then leapt after them must understand this. The Japanese were not done militarily, as the opposition point of view in this article contends. They would fight to the last man, woman, and child, IF the emperor willed it (and he did until the second bomb burst over Nagasaki). Thus, it was not a military decision. It was a cultural decision. We could not conceive of a people surrendering their will to a living god as did the Japanese. Even after the surrender, American occupiers were perplexed by the submission of the Japanese as GIs stepped ashore. We may surrender in the face of overwhelming force, but we would never submit to the will of one man as did the Japanese. Thus, these futile arguments over the use of nuclear devices will continue so long as intellectuals wish to vilify America and Americans.