[Forward the Light Brigade]

So I guess you would have been opposed to the continued strategic bombing of Germany and Japan during WW2 as well, particularly after the beginning of 1944. I mean, after all, it was “innocent” civilians for the most part being killed and maimed, wasn’t it?

YES—Targeting innocents—as we did—was and should be, a war crime. The A-bomb was needed to end the war BUT The Japanese should have been shown the horror—Bomb a Naval or air base to show its power (killing soldiers and seamen) Then—a city filled with innocents if they did not surrender. The whole unconditional surrender idea was uncool. We may well regret that when we are forced to surrender unconditionally in a war and face crippling retribution and occupation by a large military force.

[BlueLancer]

By your standards, the bombing of Hiroshima was a valid one: it was one of the larger naval bases in Japan, and it was also the HQ with responsibility for the defense of all of sourthern Japan.

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor.""

Additionally, Nagasaki was also an important war-time port, as well as a center for the production of war supplies.

"Nagasaki lies at the head of a long bay which forms the best natural harbor on the southern Japanese home island of Kyushu. The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

Both quotes from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp06.asp

Or are you saying that, because civilians live in all cities, even the ones which contain military targets, no cities should be bombed?

[BlueLancer]

And the fact that it took TWO bombs (and the threat of a third, along with an attempted coup to keep the Emperor from surrendering) to “show them the horror”, by your definition, would have still required the second bombing.