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

Now, much of that can be attributed to drafting and military deaths, surely

Speculation about "what would have caused more victims in the long term" is meaningless, because the moral implications do not depend on long term number of victims, which are, as I mentioned, just speculation.

What? Yes they do

As if the US military didn't consider long term death tolls

They most certainly tried to figure out these types of hypotheticals.

That is like saying that dropping a nuke on every city on earth would be merciful, since otherwise they will keep reproducing, which enables more deaths and eventually the number of, lets say, murders, usrpasses that of the original popujlation

Hah

That's not even close

Were talking about death counts as a result of bombing

The US military didn't care about anything beyond the equivalent to dying for Israel

We are talking about death toll

Which would lead to more deaths? Firebombing a bunch of cities, or destroying two?

Not doing anything leads to more deaths, since the population survivies and the deaths keep amassing

How do you not kill 7% of people right next to a nuclear bomb?

Firebombing a bunch of cities would have caused more deaths. You can go do the math

Orthobro, at 1000 ft, some may have survived if they were well sheltered somehow

I have to do econ and spanish homework.

I'm out.

GG's

Again, not doing anything causes more deaths because the high population keeps a periodical murder count

They just used whatever was more cruel and destructives