Personally, I'm fine with the nuke strikes on Japan during WW2. The committed numerous atrocities (just look at the rape of Nan King). They had also prepared a

Personally, I'm fine with the nuke strikes on Japan during WW2. The committed numerous atrocities (just look at the rape of Nan King). They had also prepared all of mainland Japan to fight to the death, involving all aged men, women and children. My grandfather was to be part of that invasion force. I likely wouldn't be here had the nukes not been used. Estimates of US losses in invading mainland Japan were over a million (sorry, I dont have a reference to quote, but it's a number I remember hearing from some random History channel episode a few decades ago). I'm not remise in the slightest. Around 300k lost their lives in the 2 strikes, yes, this is an awful loss of life, but in a time of war "us vs them" does play a rl. Over 450k lost their lives in the firebombing of Tokyo. A near similar number lost their lives in the firebombing of Nuremburg. But, we dont talk about Tokyo and Nuremburg like we do Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just because of the nuclear element. Each city only had around ~50k dead, immediately more may have died due to radiation induced cancer, bit thats hard to prove. Less damage was done in the nuclear cities, less people died, but we focus on them because of nuclear. I expect to be downvoted, but my points hold.