No; please inform me of anything in my post that was not factual.
"As my last post stated, nearly all Japanese citizens were considered combatants by their own government."
The fact that they are considered combatants by their own government is immaterial. ISIS could say eerybodyin the world is a combatant. That doesn't make it so. The farmer farms. The mother mothers. The toddler toddles. They are not to be targeted."Furthermore, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets."
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained military targets. Focusing in on military targets, and smashing to smithereens is not morally objectionable. I nearboy innocent bystanders get killed, that is very sad but it is also not morally objectionable, if they were not simply being sluaghtred indiscriminately. There's always collaterl damage, and that's heartbreaking but it's not murder.
Intentionally targeting civilians in order to put pressure on their government, is murder.
"What you are actually arguing is that WWII could not be fought by the US at all.
Not so. I think the solid majority of U.S. and allied military actions in WWII were justifiable."... since all air raids more or less indiscriminately hit both combatants and civilians whether the bombs were chemical or atomic."
Even in WWII, when the precision targeting technology just wasn't there, ordinary incendiary bombs could be reasonably directed toward enemy troops or assets. You can see this in the early period of the War in Europe, when the US Army Air Corps did daytime bombings focusing on Nazi military assets. This was in contrast to the RAF, which did nighttime carpet bombings of whole cities, city block by city block.
Even if they predictably caused a whole lot of collateral civilian damage, the USAAC was justified in using incendiary bombs targeted "as exactly as they could" ---these bombings, though devastating, were not targeting the civilian per se.
Remember that Germany and Japan declared war on the US, not the other way around. If the leaders of a nation declare war on another, they bear the responsibility for what may happen both to their military personnel and civilian populace.
Also remember that Germany and Japan were no angels when it came to treatment of the civilian population of their war machines. The civilian populations of China (Nanjing, for example) and Korea can attest to the brutality of Japanese forces against the civilian population. In Europe, German troops slaughtered millions of Russian civilians, and systematically exterminated millions of a targeted ethnic group simply on the basis of race hatred and some warped view of Aryan superiority. That the Allies had to target some civilian population centers to defeat a nation whose leaders were capable of such atrocities was regrettable but probably necessary to bring the conflict to a conclusion in our favor as swiftly as possible, which is, or should be, the goal when fighting a war.
Obfuscation can include omission as well as commission. You present only one side of the story. Such as the statements of generals, several of which played no direct role in the Pacific War. One of those who did, MacArthur, objected not so much to the bomb per se as to the refusal to ensure the survival of Hirohito.
Perhaps you should have quoted General Marshall:
“There is one point that was missed, and that, frankly, we missed in making our plans. That was the effect the bomb would have in so shocking the Japanese that they could surrender without losing face. ...we didn’t realize its value to give the Japanese such a shock that they could surrender without complete loss of face.” (David E. Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Volume Two: The Atomic Energy Years, 1945-1950, pg. 198).