Page 3 Hiroshima Nagasaki Bombs
pockettape, when I say sources, I mean links to serious sites or at least a specific reply.
Things like "it is in their history" is not an answer. Political history is not the easiest of the subjects, it is often twisted and bent to fit the interests of this or that country.
What I was taught at school is that, being during the WWII on the side of Germany, still presented a danger because didn't officially give up. So after Berlin had fallen, the was still was going on the East.
I suspect you might have been taught differently, what dioes not mean anyboyd of us is totally right unless we can prove our points or view with valid material, not just ungrounded generalizations.
The per cent of after explosion victims in fire bombing is definitely, much much lower than in the case with atomic bomb.
With the former you die only if you was injured during the bombing, just happened to survive then.
With the latter, you could lose your totally healthy kids some years after you'd moved your family to a new place. Because it still is poisonous from the bombing that occured 30 years ago, for instance. Your grandchildren could suffer physical and mental diseases - because of the bombing that occured in that region a while ago, when you didn't even meet your wife yet.
The number of instant deaths is huge for atomic bombs (the Hiroshima bomb was a baby in comparison to what we have now),
yes, it can be compared with the victims of fire bombing:
one AB victims = victims of several years of non-stop fire bombing
Add to this a huge number of secondary deaths that do not happen with fire bombing.