Sure, and I dunno, it probably does no one any good, I just find it mildly annoying when people treat the atomic bombs dropped in ww2 as some kind of completely incomparable atrocity.

Like the beatles joke, "were the atomic bombs the worst atrocity of all time? They weren't even the worst of that war!"

I mean, we don't really need to rank awful things, we can acknowledge anything beyond a certain level is awful without comparing them, but lots of awful things happen without involving nukes.

>"were the atomic bombs the worst atrocity of all time? They weren't even the worst of that war!"

that's debatable. like, worst single instance atrocity? possibly is

I mean, even only considering bombing raids, more people were killed during the various fire bombing campaigns against japanese cities and so on, granted those took 1000 planes instead of 1, but somehow I doubt the people burning to death considered that a meaningful distinction.

They were certainly a novel way of causing a reasonable amount of death and destruction.

Fortunately the novelty wore off fair swiftly.

> Fortunately the novelty wore off fair swiftly.

The application sure, but the novelty of it being nuclear rather than conventional kept parties interested in it for quite a while!