Not decades but the full extent, certainly.
Here is an article which I think is trying to provide the views of both sides.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature...ic-bombs-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-during-second
Please. You are using superficial debates between students now? I suggest you read up a bit more before you continue this.
I'm basing my opinion on archived accounts on the debate going on in Japan between officials who were tasked by the Suzuki government to find an end to the war. The military leaders were not going to accept any surrender, period. It was only after the second bomb was dropped that the Emperor broke the deadlock and ordered them to accept the allied surrender terms. You can quote the opinions of American leaders all you want, it didn't matter what their opinions were, the only thing that mattered was what the Japanese were doing. The ball was in their court, only they could accept or reject the surrender terms. Of course dropping the A bombs wasn't necessary, we could have continued LeMay's firebombing until there were no cities let, and then we could have invaded them until we killed every last one of them, which was what the Japanese military would have preferred.
Your discovery that certain Japanese diplomats were looking for ways to negotiate a peace isn't news, it was known at the time, but the US terms had already been made public. Unconditional surrender. The American public would accept nothing less, nor should they have. Anyway, we've been over this same information for too many pages-I'm done with this.