This is a false dichotomy. In the words of the post-war US strategic bombing survey:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

While this is all speculation, that was at the very least a defensible point of view held by a bunch of Americans shortly after the war.

Regarding firebombing: Hiroshima alone killed probably more civilians than the entire Tokyo firebombing campaign. A firestorm is a terrible thing, but you can still run from a fire even if your whole city burns down; you can't run from a nuke.

So if you measure collateral damage primarily in civilian deaths, firebombing still looks much better (a hypothetical firebombing campaign would have probably killed <40k civilians in Hiroshima instead of 100k, guesstimating from Tokyo numbers).

Edit: I don't think dropping the nuclear bombs was especially ethically questionable compared to the rest of the war, but I feel it is very important to not whitewash that event as valiant effort to save young American conscripts. Regarding it as a slightly selfish weapon demonstration feels much more accurate to me.

▲

brazzy 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think regarding it as a "demonstration" is accurate either.

Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb. The thought process behind dropping it was simply "let's hit them as hard as we can until they surrender".

▲

myrmidon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb.

I disagree slightly with that take. Decisionmakers knew that those singular bombs were gonna glass an entire city each, and previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect.

If you're at a point where you can afford to slash the primary target (Kyoto) because of nostalgic value to your secretary of war then it becomes difficult to rationalize the whole thing as "normal genuine war effort" and makes the thing look somewhat of an optional choice.

But from my point of view much more questionable decisions were made than the atomic bombings, and hindsight is always 20/20.

	▲	brazzy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect. I read that this was not the primary motivation; rather, those cities were basically on the top of the "list of industrial centers we didn't get around to bombing conventionally yet, but were going to do next".

▲

davedx 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Back then, it was just another type of bomb."

To some of the military leaders, sure. To the scientists and politicians, it wasn't viewed through such a simplistic lens.