Ideally, you kill nobody.

But if you have a choice between killing 300,000 and killing over a million, you choose the lower number. Whether they are civilians or soldiers isn't really relevant.

you contradict yourself because you disapprove of what the japanese did to the chinese yet you think it was ok to kill children in schools that had nothing to do with war. sure the japanese were horrible but why did kids have to pay? so what you are saying is that you fell good about innocent children and women dying just because of the terrible things their army did?

if so you make me sick

Yes of course in a perfect world children (actually innocents overall) shouldn't be affected by war. But if you think that wouldn't have happened if they didn't dropped the Atomic bombs (see Tokyo bombings) than frankly I believe your world view isn't realistic and borders on the fairy tail world.

of course it would have happened and it still happens to this day. and innocent are usually the ones that suffer the most. I´m very aware of that, but what upsets me is how can someone feel bad the suffering of one group of people yet feel completely indifferent to the suffering of another

edit

Just got to add that the pictures of the Nanking Massacre are really quite horrible.

a) They were leaving Hiroshima for the atomic bomb. A dick move, but it was still necessary. The purpose of the bomb was to show the Japanese what they could do and to get them to surrender. Thus, bombing an already bombed city would be beating a dead horse. 

b) Where does it say that? Please show! But yes, they may have been talking about surrendering, but does it mean they were immediately going to do so? Nope. 

c) Those are part of the reasons why an invasion of Japan would've been waay worse. Millions of people dead, plus Japan being divided between communists and capitalists. Int he long run that outcome was way worse.

I mean, look at Japan right now. They're doing relatively well-off dontcha think? 

So? 

It's not Genocide. 

It was deliberate systematic destruction. To get the Japanese to surrender. But not genocide. 

That's assuming that there was that choice in the first place, of course.

Perhaps the decision-makers (subconsciously) didn't care about the Japanese overtures for peace (which were significant) because they had already in their minds decided that the Japanese weren't serious - probably because (subconsciously) they wanted to use the bomb - after all, they had just invested a lot of money in it and had several 'good' reasons to use them. The orthodox/revisionist/post-revisionist debate over this is quite interesting, but it is clearly more complex than just saying they did it to save lives.

With the logic of retaliating for Japanese crimes, they should have been the Chinese to bomb Japan. And applying the same principle, Native American survivors of the most decimated tribes would be justified to bomb some middle sized US towns. Southern French could bomb Northern France to retaliate for the Albigean Crusade. Eastern Europe and Western and Central Asia could gang together and destroy Mongolia to take vengeance for Genghis Khan. And why not dropping the bomb on Berlin at the end of WW II, just to be sure to kill Hitler and his buddies? OTOH the Polish could have considered bombing Moskow, as the original criminal deal between Hitler and Stalin to share Europe caused the start of WW II at their expenses, and they kept on paying even after the war, oppressd by URSS.

Hmm OK, I agree with you there. I thought you were making a point, which you apparently weren't.