The people in charge, like they do to this day, couldn't care less about civilians

One method was slow, typical, far less destructive.

The other was "big bomb on da chinks"

So "why not?"

9/10 would nuke again

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that firebombing was devastating Japan too and massive numbers were already dying at the hands of fire bombing

One method was much more effective than the other

And I'm 99% sure that no bombing would have caused even a fraction of the damage nor consequences

You can keep thinking that

Neither of us has a PhD in WW2 history

So our opinions are likely useless

I can keep thinking that because everyone can see what a nuke does

They dropped the bomb because it was more efficient

Everyone can see what firebombing does too and look at death tolls...

Plus we nuked nips, not chinks.

They didn't surrender because of firebombing

They would have if we continued for long enough

I don't see any obliterated japanese city because of firebombing

We had already destroyed tons of their military production facilities

They knew they were going to lose already essentially

It was a matter of when

Destroying some facilities is nothign compared to what a nuke on a city of civvilians does

We firebombed the citizens too FYI

The cities were burnt to ashes

Entire cities

Full of people

I don't think so

You could look it up -__-

It's not hard to find that type of info...

You could look up pictures of the state of the two cities after the nukes

The fact that you reply "I don't think so" proves you don't know much about the war development as the US approached Japan in the end of the war

So no need to debate you anywhow...

to debate what?

That you make up that you cause more destruction of the same place with firebombing?

Or the absurd claim that the nukes were some kind of mercy kill?

Bruh, I just explained to you

I'll try to rephrase

Option 1: Firebombing. In this option, which the US has been doing for awhile already, it kills almost all citizens in each city we bomb, destroys all infrastructure, and burns all building to the point of complete unusability. Because this method is slower than nuking and far less psychologically terrifying, the US will likely have to firebomb many cities before Japan is forced to surrender. The most likely city after Hiroshima and Nagasaki is Tokyo, followed by other major cities.

Option 2: Nuking. In this option, the US nukes two cities. It kills all citizens in each city we bomb, destroys all infrastructure, and collapses all buildings. This method will end the war exceedingly quickly because of the sheer power of the weapon, which is too great of a threat for Japan to risk taking a hit on Tokyo.

I'm now going to rephrase what you say: "the nukes are a mercy kill because I mde up this hypothetical stories about how the japanese would have let themselves be slowly murdered in every single major city if we hadnt been merciful enough to erase two cities from the face of the Earth in an instant"

Hypothetical? Dude, firebombings didn't "hypothetically" kill hundreds of thousand and didn't "hypothetically" wipeout cities.

<:clownpepe:550674767351644180>