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>

The firebombings killed more than double the nukings

We killed 333,000 in Japan bombings

80,000 at Hiroshima

40,000 at Nagasaki

but fat boy bad

Oh yes, and what % of the population of acity is killed in an instance of firebombings?

And those are only inmediate death victims

We didn't know about residual radiation effects at the time

It is clear what is the ultimate show of cruelty

Percentage? Idk, I can show

Give me time to crunch numbers

roughly 100%

If it helps you see what I mean, we *did* firebomb Tokyo

Guess how many died?

Around 100000

80k-100k. It's hard to know the exact numbers

Yeah, that's more than either nuke

And its population was aorund 5 million

It is clear to me that nobody cared about hypothesis of how many victims there would be with one of other method. The nukes were the most powerful weapon. It doesn't matter how much firebombing, or swords, or whatever, kills in the long term. Everything kills "a lot" in the long term, but that doesn't make the method more effective. They just had the nukes and were willing to use them because they were better at their job.

Actually a little larger. Depends on sources

But if you take into account other military losses

The population of Tokyo dropped by roughly 50% from 1940-1945