Why do some people see a moral difference between dropping an atomic bomb and a conventional fire bomb?

Answer 1

1. My guess is there are two reasons. One, an atomic blast involves a much bigger area of damage. Two, a bigger blast area almost certainly means civilians will be hurt or killed. With traditional bombs, the target is usually combat-specific.
2. I believe it is because of the radiation poisoning of the atomic bomb. In addition to the massive explosion that caused immediate deaths, it continued to affect the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The survivors suffered from multiple cancers including leukemia, and children were born with birth defects for generations because of the radiation of the atomic weapons. Although the the traditional bombs killed 200,000 civilians, they would not have caused so much internal damage, due to radiation, as only a nuclear weapon could deliver the radiation that will affect the peoples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima for many generations to come.
3. Opinion: Because "they" want to see a difference. There is a BIG moral difference between dropping ONEatomic bomb, and ONE fire bomb. There is little or no moral difference between the use of one or two atomic bombs versus hundreds of thousands of fire bombs, which would have been necessary in lieu of one or two atomic devices.

However, EVERYONE, Allies and Japanese know [or SHOULD know, or to stir historical trouble, refuse to acknowledge] that ONE fire bomb would NOT have brought about the unconditional surrender of Japan.

It would have taken THOUSANDS of fire bombs, and thousands [possibly hundreds of thousands] of Japanese lives [civilian and military], as well as thousands more Allied personnel in the invasion forces to force the Japanese Military High Command[NOT the Emperor, because he only knew what they wanted him to know] to sue for peace.

All of these recent Q&A attempts to stir the fires by "rewriting history" are futile [in spite of the allegations of "facts" which ARE NOT FACT] as the world knows that Japan was stalling for time, and the Military High Command had no intention of surrendering UNTIL they had set up conditions in their favor [which the Allies were not going to allow to happen].

In closing, the real truth of the matter is that the Allied use of the atomic bombs DID SAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Allied forces AND JAPANESE lives!!!!! Another thought Japan and Germany were also attempting to build atomic weapons. Would they have used them against the Allies if they had completed them first? Addition weapons of mass destruction = NBCR (nuclear weapon, biological weapon, chemical weapon, radiological dispersion device)

*A fire bomb can only do so much damage; and even with multiple thousands the total damage is still fairly restricted: the fires go out after days, usually less, and the area can be replanted and used within months. A single nuclear weapon with one blast can destroy a city and the surrounding area, and leave it irradiated for decades.

[Note: the preceding claim about radiation contamination is not borne out by experiences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which did not experience any significant post-bomb problems with radiation. People present during the attacks have had a higher rate of cancer than normal, but those living in the areas after the attacks have not. The problems of fallout generally occur downwind of the attack site, and are primarily tied to the size and style of the nuclear attack. Thus, nuclear attacks using small-yield airburst weapons will leave very little fallout, and little residual radiation, while those using surface-burst large yield weapons will produce massive fallout. Standard nuclear weapons leave behind short lived radioisotopes in their fallout that decay to "safe" levels in as little as 8 days to at most 3 to 6 months, only neutron bombs which activate long lived radioisotopes in the target materials themselves and enhanced radiation bombs like the "cobalt bomb" produce long lived persistent radioactive contamination lasting years or decades.]