Well it looks like the big decision re Iran is going to have to happen in the next 6-12 months according to most media outlets. Very crudely seems to boil down to either Israel suffers a nuclear holocaust or else Irans nuclear facilities are destroyed with 101 implications on either side of course.
What do people think ?
Good intro article in todays Times for the unitiated:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2753953.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2753953.ece)
My own take - haven't really made up my mind to be honest. I can't see Iran under Ahmadinejad backing down and yet can't see Israel allowing Iran to develop a weapon, which they are 1 year away from according to IAEA. Scenario in the atricle above seems scarily probable.
QuoteWho actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power?
Well given that the Iranians have stated they wanted Israel wiped off the face of the planet, then should the Israelis allow them develop nuclear weapons given that they have the capability to stop them ? What would you do if you were an Israeli ? It seems clear that for the Israelis to get the go-ahead from the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc, then a fully feldged Palestinian state would have to be created ...... i think we can expect some serious geo-political movements over there in the next 6 months
The greeness or otherwise of nuclear power is not the issue. Is Iran serious about putting all this time and effort into creating nuclear power given all the geopolitical tensions it is causing and given the vast oil reserves that they sit on ?
QuoteHave noticed that Connacht people's attitudes to "world events" get a quare mention on the "news".
Quote from: 5iveTimes on October 28, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
Who actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power? And what is the criteria?
The Americans, by all accounts, obviously with input from Israel!! >:(
QuoteWho actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power? And what is the criteria?
The Americans, by all accounts, obviously with input from Israel!!
What would people prefer? The current situation where America and other western nations like France, UK, etc having nuclear arms, the main purpose of which is to keep other nations in check, the]ose nations being the type of nation who would use them on the western world if they had them ..... or for it to be a free for all where everybody is allowed have them - US, Israel, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Sudan, etc. ?
no
QuoteThe current situation where America and other western nations like France, UK, etc having nuclear arms, the main purpose of which is to keep other nations in check
No so much keeping them in check as using them as a big stick to beat other nations. The Russians offered the Americans a deal whereby both sides would scrap almost all of their weapons. The Americans declined. As for Israel they don't even admit to having Nuclear weapons.
I don't buy the 'we have to have them in case they get them' argument.
Here is a simple solution:
The US arms all sides in the Middle East equally and not just Israel.
They would either start a war which would mean they annihilate each other completely or they would realise the folly of that (as the US and USSR did during the cold war) and sit in awkward peace.
The notion of arming one nation to the teeth with nuclear weapons while invading any of the oil rich but belligerent neighbours is a disastrous policy designed to ensure there will never be peace.
I don't particulary like Iran but its media status as a rogue nation that exists only to destroy Israel comes from the Murdock press and personally I think any country presided over by a neo-con administration is not any more reliable.
The solution of how to get rid of all nuclear weapons is really a seperate discussion for another day imho.
The reality of now is that Iran is 1 year away from having a nuclear bomb according to the IAEA while the president of Iran has said that he wants Iran wiped off the face of the planet ..... what to do ?
- Dismiss what the Iranians are saying as just hot air ?
- Bomb the nuclear sites in Iran and in parallel create a fully fledged Palestinian state to keep the other middle east countries happy
- Trust the UN to handle the situation
In fairness though, there does seem to be some confusion as to what the literal translation of what Ahmadinejad said, i.e.: whether he actually said he wanted Israel wiped off the face of the planet or whether he wants the current regime wiped. In any case, if Iran wants nulcear power for peaceful purposes, why have they refused Russia's offer to supply its almost completed reactor with fuel rods?
Iran is no threat to America or Israel, the US media has just been feeding their government's scare tactics message as usual. If he was to attempt to wipe a nation of the planet he knows exactly what would happen, he is just posturing and wants to be seen as the leader who isn't afraid of Bush.
I suspect America will not be so stupid this time as to attempt any intervention regards Iran given their foreign policy disasters over the past few years and the desire for more isolationism among their public.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 29, 2007, 11:10:33 AM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on October 28, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
Who actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power? And what is the criteria?
The Americans, by all accounts, obviously with input from Israel!! >:(
It's a brilliant irony that the only country to ever actualize nuclear warfare is the one who 'protects' against nuclear capability falling into the wrong hands!!
We are in a perilous time of world history.Bush/Cheney are crazy and given half a chance would bomb Iran.The problem is for all their military might they cannot control iraq and have been deserted by the brits and others have only token troops there.
Bush himself is a questionable,does he sound,act or look like anyone of intelligence required to run such a powerful country? the hyperpower as they call themselves.In 2000 Iraq were changing the pricing of oil from us dollars to euro, undermining the us dollar,not good.As soon as the us invaded it was changed back to the us dollar.Iran are in the middle of this process too and it could be bad for the dollar.
Interesting times ahead, i hope that sense prevails.
Funny how when Iran had a liberal President in the shape of Mohammad Khatami, the post was dismissed by the neocons as being irrelevant as the real power was in the hands of the Supreme Leader. Now that a nutjob like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in the role, the Presidents every pronouncement is treated as gospel (so to speak),
No less a headcase than Mao Zedong said that nuclear weapons were a paper tiger (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/28/content_6143129.htm). Let the Iranians have their bomb.
QuoteIran are in the middle of this process too and it could be bad for the dollar
That is an understatement. It could cause the US economy to collapse.
Remember when you were a kid and you asked your teacher why the government didn't just print more money and give it out to everyone? The answer that you got applies to every currency, except the dollar. And the reason is that oil is traded in dollars.
Mr Bush using typically Dubya economics has literally just printed more dollars to pay for his war. If the US dollar loses its stranglehold on oil its value could very easily collapse. As we had discussed here before, Venezuela, Russia and other major oil producers are considering switching to Euros. The EU's only oil producers, Sweden and the UK, have stayed out of the Euro to avoid the problem but for how much longer?
Clinton had balanced the books by the time he finished in office so there is really only one administration to blame for this mess.
BTW the US constitution mandates the President to take military action against any perceived attack on the dollar. It would be nuts to attack Iran given the Iraq fiasco, but then we are not talking about rational people.
QuoteAll right. Nuclear weapons are to be prohibited after the realization of the three principles
They would not be the same opinions of Mao if any of the books (ok, only 2) i have read on him are to be taken as fact. He desperately wanted China to be a nuclear power, and was even willing to test the effect of a weapon on his own people if need be. Thankfully they never succeeded in becoming a nuclear power in his time. Is the article you posted yet another one of countless millions of fabrications published about Maos life to continue his myth. I have talked to a few Chinese people about Mao (socials at work when i was half cut and they were sober !) and their thinking is still that he was the great leader and was to blame for nothing. Amazing.
Muppet, the scenario you summarise is, to me, the most frightening of all. The US is a declining economic power but the only military power - a truly dangerous situation for the world to find itself in, especially when you consider that we are talking about the only country that has shown itself willing to use nuclear weapons. The people in the Pentagon and the White House possess the military power to do exactly as they please and are newly reminded once more of how messy ground wars can be. Would they hesitate to press the red button in the face of the imminent collapse of the dollar, or the inexorable rise of China or any one of a hundred other scenarios that threaten America's economic interests? I don't know. Does anybody?
USA - the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in warfare lecturing the world on the morality of Iran developing the capability just about sums up the lunacy of the present administration. Doomsday scenario as pointed out by Muppet is the one question that nobody knows the answer to. Maybe we won't have to wait for global warming etc to end it all.
Either way and every way,we better keep our fingers crossed that peace prevails.Imagine if the us bomb iran, what would happen.
Worldwide recession?Oil shortages?China given the opportunity to grab taiwan and some more? Russia ready to move again with a powerful military?
The usa is a massive financial power.If it collapsed what would dear old Ireland do for work?Manufacture toys and make straw hats?
Quote from: Niall Quinn on October 29, 2007, 03:42:11 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 29, 2007, 11:10:33 AM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on October 28, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
Who actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power? And what is the criteria?
The Americans, by all accounts, obviously with input from Israel!! >:(
It's a brilliant irony that the only country to ever actualize nuclear warfare is the one who 'protects' against nuclear capability falling into the wrong hands!!
Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.
Quote from: J70 on October 30, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.
Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.
We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King
The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HnqHpgzLHHJZNSfMDs7DQT2Qk1Zb4M31k4nBtPDvb1JT44hdTdgx!1720090147?docId=97730166)
Quote from: deiseach on October 30, 2007, 01:06:51 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 30, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.
Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.
We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King
The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HnqHpgzLHHJZNSfMDs7DQT2Qk1Zb4M31k4nBtPDvb1JT44hdTdgx!1720090147?docId=97730166)
I presume you think a land invasion, preceded by even more firebombing of Japanese cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands more dying, including thousands of US soldiers, would have been the better option? The bombs were an appalling option to have to choose, but they ended the war in a couple of days.
Quote from: AFS on October 31, 2007, 02:46:18 AM
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 02:19:56 AM
Quote from: deiseach on October 30, 2007, 01:06:51 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 30, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.
Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.
We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King
The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HnqHpgzLHHJZNSfMDs7DQT2Qk1Zb4M31k4nBtPDvb1JT44hdTdgx!1720090147?docId=97730166)
I presume you think a land invasion, preceded by even more firebombing of Japanese cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands more dying, including thousands of US soldiers, would have been the better option? The bombs were an appalling option to have to choose, but they ended the war in a couple of days.
The most galling thing to consider around that time was that the Japanese were already on their knees with their Navy obliterated after Okinawa. They no longer posed a serious threat to the US. For the US to then indiscriminately nuke two of their cities considering the level of threat they then posed was a vastly disproportional action.
Yet they continued to reject Allied demands to surrender. As many people died in the firebombing of Japanese cities in the preceding months as in the atomic blasts, but they continued to fight on.
Its easy to say in retrospect that Truman should have done this or not done that and to second-guess his decision and historians have been arguing both sides of the case since 1945. The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week. Truman's first responsibility was to the Allied countries and their soldiers, men who wouldn't have been conscripted into military service except for the Japanese and Germans.
QuoteThe bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week
So the end justified the means then J70??
I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history.
Quote from: Declan on October 31, 2007, 07:06:04 AM
QuoteThe bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week
So the end justified the means then J70??
I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history.
And the A bomb saved lives
The fact remains that the USA is the only country ever to use the nuclear option. I'd be more swayed by the arguments justifying the nuking of Japan if I didn't have these nagging memories of the numerous reports, in the intervening years, of wackos in the Pentagon seriously proposing the nuking of various countries they didn't like the look of. Usually, they were overruled because the incumbent of the White House was somewhat less wacko than they were.
These days...?
Quote from: Declan on October 31, 2007, 07:06:04 AM
QuoteThe bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week
So the end justified the means then J70??
I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history.
Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: Declan on October 31, 2007, 07:06:04 AM
QuoteThe bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week
So the end justified the means then J70??
I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history.
Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?
And hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had to died for every inch of Japan's home island?
Quote from: Hardy on October 31, 2007, 09:41:02 AM
The fact remains that the USA is the only country ever to use the nuclear option. I'd be more swayed by the arguments justifying the nuking of Japan if I didn't have these nagging memories of the numerous reports, in the intervening years, of wackos in the Pentagon seriously proposing the nuking of various countries they didn't like the look of. Usually, they were overruled because the incumbent of the White House was somewhat less wacko than they were.
These days...?
Hardy might I recommend reading
Fiasco (http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/159420103X).
It suggests that the pentagon are far more pragmatic and visionary than we might otherwise think. The book contains speeches from before the Iraq invasion warning the Bush administration that Iraq would become a long war with insurgents rather the the quick 'shock and awe' skirmish Bush's people promised. They know their stuff, unfortunately the headbangers didn't listen.
As for Japan speculating about the deaths if the Yanks didn't drop the A-bomb can only ever be speculation. The effects of the A-bomb are real. People still die from the fall-out.
owever, that is judging a 62 year old decision in today's context. It is worth mentioning that in Japanese culture suicide is preferable to losing face so a surrender would have seemed very unlikely to the Americans when they were making thier decision. After a long bitter war it must have seemed an attractive choice.
QuotePerhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?
Correct the arguments haven't been supressed but as I said its an entirely different thread.
Fair enough if you think the end justified the means. It certainly wouldn't have "sit easier" with me as you put it if they had died during a firebombing campaign at all - Even in a " justifiable" war the loss of life no matter who it is, is in my way of thinking, regrettable. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagazaki going about their daily business on those fateful days were no less human or valuable than the other people who died during WW2.
I'd like to think that humanity has moved on since then but given the fact that the Americans don't even consider Iraqi victims in the war as worthy of counting in their statistics I have my doubts.
Quote from: Declan on October 31, 2007, 01:50:35 PM
QuotePerhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?
Correct the arguments haven't been supressed but as I said its an entirely different thread.
Fair enough if you think the end justified the means. It certainly wouldn't have "sit easier" with me as you put it if they had died during a firebombing campaign at all - Even in a " justifiable" war the loss of life no matter who it is, is in my way of thinking, regrettable. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagazaki going about their daily business on those fateful days were no less human or valuable than the other people who died during WW2.
I'd like to think that humanity has moved on since then but given the fact that the Americans don't even consider Iraqi victims in the war as worthy of counting in their statistics I have my doubts.
Of course the loss of Japanese lives was regrettable, but to the Allies, the continuing and prospective loss of their own people came first, and justifiably so.
The Iraqi victims get plenty of coverage over here, BTW, even if Bushco would like to play down civilian losses as much as possible!
J70
I know it's not what this thread is about, but you cannot seriously think the A-Bombs were justified?? Particularly the second one (Nagasaki was second I think?), could a bit more time have been left after Hiroshima to see if the Japanese surrendered? Not that either of them were OK, given what they done and continue to do to men women and children in those cities.
Quote from: Rav67 on October 31, 2007, 03:44:28 PM
J70
I know it's not what this thread is about, but you cannot seriously think the A-Bombs were justified?? Particularly the second one (Nagasaki was second I think?), could a bit more time have been left after Hiroshima to see if the Japanese surrendered? Not that either of them were OK, given what they done and continue to do to men women and children in those cities.
I can obviously see where the argument can be made that maybe they should have held off on the second one, but how long would have been enough? Given that the Americans were making plans to drop further bombs when they became available if the Japanese didn't surrender, they obviously thought that this could go on for some time. I'm not denying that the bombs were horrific, but where they worse than what the Japanese did to millions during their aggression across Asia and the Pacific? Was a continuation of what occurred in places like Okinawa in the preceding months preferrable? Its very easy (and fashionable as always) to sit here and ascribe the worst possible motives to the Americans from the perspective of 2007.
Quote from: Gnevin on October 31, 2007, 12:38:31 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: Declan on October 31, 2007, 07:06:04 AM
QuoteThe bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week
So the end justified the means then J70??
I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history.
Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?
And hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had to died for every inch of Japan's home island?
Is that a question directed at me?
Joe Lee (that man again) did an analysis in his Tribune column a while back of how hyperinflation affected the various conjectures regarding Allied loss of life should they have to invade Japan. At first, figures were in the thousands, then the tens of thousands, then hundreds, and now seems to have settled - completely independent of any coherent analyisis - in the millions.
The Americans dropped the bomb to prevent Uncle Joe from pinching Japan from under their noses. Loss of life was secondary to needs of the post-Yalta settlement.
Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless. ::)
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 07:56:47 PM
Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless. ::)
So at 26 deaths per square mile, with the area of Japan being about 142,000 square miles, the Allies would have had to sacrifice nearly six million men to conquer Japan. That is the logic of your post, right?
Quote from: deiseach on October 31, 2007, 08:16:10 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 07:56:47 PM
Okinawa is less than 500 square miles in size. During the 3 month fight there in 1945, the Allies lost 13,000 dead, the Japanese 70,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed. A land invasion of Japan beginning three months later therefore would obviously be relatively bloodless. ::)
So at 26 deaths per square mile, with the area of Japan being about 142,000 square miles, the Allies would have had to sacrifice nearly six million men to conquer Japan. That is the logic of your post, right?
No, I'm not making a direct extrapolation. I'm merely pointing out that it would have been extremely costly in terms of lives lost, judging by what took place in the weeks leading up to Hiroshima, and that was a primary factor in the decision to resort to atomic weapons. You're the one who seems to be implying that the potential cost in Allied or Japanese lives was exaggerated or at most of secondary importance.
I have no doubt it was of secondary importance. The primary motivation was to prevent Japan falling into Soviet hands. This goal could have been achieved through diplomacy, i.e. dropping the unconditional surrender condition and agreeing to overlook Japan's more egregious crimes and criminals in the subsequent settlement (something they did anyway, hanging Tojo while letting Hirohito off the hook).
Let me put it this way. Had Japan acquired and used the atomic bomb, do you think a defence of "we were only trying to save lives, m'lud" would have been accepted at a war crimes tribunal?
Quote from: deiseach on October 31, 2007, 08:38:39 PM
I have no doubt it was of secondary importance. The primary motivation was to prevent Japan falling into Soviet hands. This goal could have been achieved through diplomacy, i.e. dropping the unconditional surrender condition and agreeing to overlook Japan's more egregious crimes and criminals in the subsequent settlement (something they did anyway, hanging Tojo while letting Hirohito off the hook).
Let me put it this way. Had Japan acquired and used the atomic bomb, do you think a defence of "we were only trying to save lives, m'lud" would have been accepted at a war crimes tribunal?
Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.
I'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 08:55:37 PM
Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.
By that logic, the current leaders of the United States should be before a war crimes tribunal ::)
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 08:55:37 PMI'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?
All other things being equal, the Japanese were better off. But, as I explained in my earlier post, all other things were not equal. They had the diplomacy option, but the Allies had hoisted themselves on the petard of unconditional surrender, a canard as ridiculous then as it was when John Major was blithering on about not negotiating with terrorists while, uh, negotiating with terrorists. The prosperous, democratic(ish) polity that emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War in Japan showed the character of the country was not fixed in stone, yet the Allies persisted in clinging to the kind of rhetoric that belonged in an age when folk believed in the divine right of kings.
Quote from: deiseach on October 31, 2007, 09:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 08:55:37 PM
Not in a war in which they were the aggressors and were intent on continuing a fight in which they had shown no concern for the lives of those they conquered or captured.
By that logic, the current leaders of the United States should be before a war crimes tribunal ::)
Perhaps. My point still stands though! :P
Quote from: deiseach on October 31, 2007, 09:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 31, 2007, 08:55:37 PMI'm not sure where you get your certainty from, given that people have been arguing this back and forth for decades, but assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct, do you think the Japanese would have been better off if the Allies hadn't dropped the bombs and Soviets had conquered Japan?
All other things being equal, the Japanese were better off. But, as I explained in my earlier post, all other things were not equal. They had the diplomacy option, but the Allies had hoisted themselves on the petard of unconditional surrender, a canard as ridiculous then as it was when John Major was blithering on about not negotiating with terrorists while, uh, negotiating with terrorists. The prosperous, democratic(ish) polity that emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War in Japan showed the character of the country was not fixed in stone, yet the Allies persisted in clinging to the kind of rhetoric that belonged in an age when folk believed in the divine right of kings.
Assuming the Japanese would have quickly surrendered all of their remaining conquests, stood down the military leadership and acceded to the occupation provided the emperor was left in place.