I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's ch

I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?