wyluzuj said:
This ! Everyone who says that an attack on a military base (druing a word war) is the same as a drop of a nuclear bomb on an civilian city is not normal imo. |
We were not at war. In fact, their message that arrived late wasn't even a declaration of war, just a message saying negotiations were ending.
And it's not like the US attacked fishing villages with these nukes. Hiroshima was the military command center for all of southern Japan and had a garrison of 40,000 troops. Nagasaki was a major industrial center and key for the production of munitions, weapons, and warships. It also housed a large munitions depot Both were high value military targets and would have been bombed with or without the use of nukes, likely to the same level of destruction. There were precision weapons, no smart bombs or cruise missiles. As pointed out by the military advisors of the time, a large scale bombing run like had been done to other cities in Japan could have yielded similar results. So whether by a nuke or by a large scale heavy ordinance and fire bombing run, the cities would have been destroyed. In fact, Nagasaki might have received even more damage as the nuclear blast was contained within a valley, something that wouldn't have happened in a large scale bombing run.
However, it is pointless to compare the two, they are different acts. However, one was a blindsiding act of aggression, the other a calculated act to end a war. The former is a definite, clear violiation of the rules of war *of that time.* The latter was not.
