In a sense, the quibbling over whether or not it was a war crime is meaningless. If atomic weapons hadn't been available, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've undergone ordinary firebombing, likely resulting in immediate casualties just as high. See, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/world/tokyo-journal-10000... for a description of the effects of firebombing elsewhere in Japan.
One might argue that the lingering radiation effects made atomic weapons worse but, on the other hand, the firebombing would've been done more than once. Really six of one, half a dozen of the other, except you don't see that many people bringing up firebombings as a war crime.
One might argue that the lingering radiation effects made atomic weapons worse but, on the other hand, the firebombing would've been done more than once. Really six of one, half a dozen of the other, except you don't see that many people bringing up firebombings as a war crime.