The Nuking of Japan

[Anomalocaris]

. Nonetheless, there were legitimate military targets in those cities. The cities themselves were like any other cities. .

I have to say the practical choices with practical weapon accuracy of the era are:

A) the military installation's location in a city makes those military targets illegitimate to attack

B) the city's location around the military target makes the city a legitimate target to attack.

Distinguishing in morality what can not be distinguished with feasible weapon accuracy might be very nice for a professorship in the department of ethics, it has no real function if the concerns is to actually get things done in a war.

. 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.

1. If by not killing massive amounts of people, even more massive amount of people will die, then I would say it would be rather immoral to allow the larger amount to die to save the smaller amount

2. Those implication you mention were man made, and were more importantly made after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so they have no impact on evaluting the morality of the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The notion that Atomic bombs were "Unconventional" was an invention that came after America discovered we could be on the receiving end. Prior to that we regarded atom bomb as just like normal bombs, only individually big and more convenient to deliver for the same effect. We planned to drop a few as tactical weapons on the Chinese during Korean war, for example.