Those were the economic and military HQ cities. No matter where we bombed, we would kill civilians

Don't be surprised of how, seeing what monsters threatened them, they were willing to sacrifice themselves

@Quarantine_Zone Again pathetic excuses for an act that shows who deserved to lose

The alternative was firebombing dozens of cities

When will you people learn to never do balkan threads

The alternative was stop being evil retards who are wiling to nuke civilian cities

The thing is this. Last thing I'm saying about the japanese

So you want to firebomb the cities instead?

This reminds me of the arguments for abortion

Oh, its not exactly a balkan thread, my bad

>do you want the child to live without being loved?

What I'm saying is the US was going to bomb cities no matter what

Even that is more defensible than nuking two cities

The military decided they could either nuke or firebomb. Nuking was going to end the war quickly. Firebombing would have lasted months and killed more people.

I don't think so

The military just didn't care about civilians

Dude, firebombing would have killed more people

And decided to drop big bombs on the ebil antisemites

Have you seen the results of napalm bombs on cities?

We would have destroyes the same cities

Well, I would see the results of nukes, but there is no city to look at

Plus more

No, you don't get it

Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been absolutely wiped out by the firebombing too!

Why do you think people and military talk constantly about the threat of nukes and not the threat of "firebombing"?

Sure thing

I'm sorry, but that just looks like the cheapest excuse one could ever make

Because nukes are fast and, in the present day, too many countries have them with too much tension, so one nuke could set off many countries nuking

"Sure, I have pretty much erased your city form Earth, but it was for the best, believe me!"

Firebombing would have killed the citizens too, and the citizens of Tokyo and other cities likely

Would you rather have 2 cities dead or 5 cities dead?

I'm going to offer a more plausible alternative:

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