The Nuking of Japan

[Shell B]

Can it not also be argued that not engaging in a strategic action (that by definition saves manpower and resources) is immoral?

Sure. You can have to choose between two immoral actions.

Dropping nukes was good because dropping firebombs was considered good. Just like dropping any munition is considered 'good'.

But, it isn't "good." None of it is "good." It's an act of war. Perhaps it is sometimes necessary, but never good.

You've failed to demonstrate the moral difference between a nuclear warhead and a conventional firebomb.

I did not realize that I had to. The question is not was it more or less moral.

Nor have you disputed the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets.

I didn't realize that I had to dispute that, Syn. Nonetheless, there were legitimate military targets in those cities. The cities themselves were like any other cities.

A great many people perished in Tokyo due to the firebombs. Many died in Dresden from the same.

I'm sorry Syn. I never said that those things were okay, so this is irrelevant.

Are you really willing to go out on a limb and assign morality to an entire class weapons that are meant to kill entire cities when other classes accomplish the same or even greater body counts?

Yes, thanks to the fact that I never said killing massive amounts of people with anything is ever moral. Furthermore, the implications of nuclear weapons are far more than the body count and I think you know that. Fallout is real and regular explosives do not produce a fallout.