Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings...
I haven't personally died from a bomb, but I find it super hard to imagine a scenario where I would be happier if I died from a regular bomb vs a nuclear bomb.
More people died from the single bombing raid on tokyo than died from the nuclear weapon being dropped on hiroshima. Yes, people also died from radiation poisoning during the days and months following, but people also died from all sorts of injuries sustained from the "regular bombs", burns, smoke inhalation, etc.
Comparing which type of agonizing death is worse is rarely a useful way to spend time.
> Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings...
This is the point I want to make. It really wasn't that different. Yes, a city was destroyed in a single night. Over seventy other cities were destroyed in a single night in Japan alone during the year of 1945.
But nukes as a weapon are fundamentally different. A single airplane can level a city. A single submarine can destroy a country. I'm sorry, but they are a Pandora's box that was opened and changed the course of the world afterwards.
Later on, that type of weapon became cheaper and several thousands were created and became the basis for a long window of relative peace.
Moreover, what's the argument here as you see it?
I'm also curious as to why what the US did to Hiroshima is an unthinkable nightmare scenarios whereas what the US did to Tokyo is not (and nor is what the US did to 71 other cities in Japan also not that).
Dead is dead.
You are correct in the sense that Japan was going to surrender at some point, whether that was due to conventional bombings, starvation from naval blockades or an actual invasion by the USA, there's no scenario where they don't sign an unconditional surrender.
Most of those scenarios would have killed more people than the two nuclear weapons being dropped.
Say what now?
Tokyo was bombed by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) ..
The strikes conducted by the USAAF on the night of 9–10 March 1945, codenamed Operation Meetinghouse, constitute the single deadliest and most destructive aerial bombing raid in human history.[1] Sixteen square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) of central Tokyo was destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.
> Do you see a difference in razing a city with one bomb in an instant or with thousands of bombs
Tokyo vs. Hiroshima - https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/
Do you?
(Aside from thousands of conventional bombs being significantly cheaper and lower tech than a nuclear bomb).
The cost of causing death isn't the atrocity. The atrocity is the death happening. If "terrorists" somehow managed to create 1000+ b52s and drop 10,000 tons of "regular bombs" on manhattan, it would be just as atrocious as a nuclear weapon going off. Obviously the single nuke is a slightly more realistic threat, but that's not the point.
If you want to argue that anybody dying ever is an atrocity, that is one thing. If you want to argue any civilian dying during a war is an atrocity, that is a different thing and, among other things, would require you to define civilian in a useful way.