Oh please - Peters inference was the us treated them as such and given their barbarism especially in the previous battles in China where they condemned hundreds of thousands of women to enslavement and systematic rape, chemical and some form of germ warfare and then acts of degradation and destruction on all their enemies it’s not my understanding of humanity. yet of course on good old SBT it’s the western cultures behaviour in the war that is more scrutinised as some kind of racially motivated attack and none of this gets a mention
I've not said the Japanese actions weren't utterly despicable. They were, and not just in that conflict.
Your argument was that the atomic bombs were justified because they brought about a quicker end to the war (something which is likely true but subjective as to how long it would have gone on for and the number of people that would've died as a result).
I'm saying that the first bomb would have been enough to bring about that early end to the war, and all that was needed was to threaten another for them to cave. So the second bomb actually did nothing in expediating the end of the war and thus civilians were killed needlessly.
Just for context, how many nuclear bombs to bring about an early end of the war would you have thought was justified? If they'd dropped three, four, five would that have been fine? If these bombs supposedly saved millions of lives by bringing the war to an early close surely as long as less than millions are killed then it's fine? Why was one not enough and two just the right amount? If Russia used horrific weapons that caused the Ukrainian resistance to give up, thus ending the war and saving loads of people from dying in a drawn out conflict, would that be acceptable?