It is also certain that many branches of many families do not exist because of the war.

Blame those, who started the war, instead of those, who ended it.

Defenders can use anything, including weapons of mass destruction, to defend themselves. Attacking to with intent to kill even one person is crime.

> Defenders can use anything, including weapons of mass destruction, to defend themselves.

Not according to the Geneva convention. Targeting civilians is a war crime, regardless of who does it.

In many wars, both sides claim to only defend themselves, often both sides even claim to have been attacked first. Just look at the last few wars fought by the US for example. Under such a simplistic moral compass as you gave, they'd both feel justified to do anything.

> Attacking to with intent to kill even one person is crime.

Dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian center is attacking with intent to kill.

It is just not so simple.

Yes, wars are not simple. Fog of war may make it blurry, or enemy may fool each other. For example, soviets shelled their own territory in Finnish war, to pretend that they were attacked first, so they are defending. Russians are using same thing too: they blown up their own buildings to blame Chechen and then started second Chechen war, or, in case of Russo-Ukrainian war, they pretend that Ukraine will be swallowed by NATO and then European and American homosexuals will freely fuck Russian-speaking Ukrainian children, so Russians are invaded to protect Ukrainians!

However, this should not alter your moral compass. Those, who defend themselves, have moral rights to wipe the attackers or invaders.

I don't think there was much in the Geneva Conventions about targeting civilians until 1949 and the 4th Geneva convention. Maybe there was something about bombarding civilians from ships at sea.

I’m pretty sure morality and moral compass predate the Geneva Conventions, though. Just because it was not “sanctioned” doesn’t mean it was necessarily moral, and WEIZSÄCKER’s comment indeed shows it.

In the end all that matters is power. Words on a treaty mean nothing when it comes down to it, only their enforcement does.

Yeah no, I can condemn the usage of the bomb and calling the US a “defender” in the Pacific theatre stretches the truth considerably.

More probably exist because of the bomb. A land invasion would've killed an order of magnitude more Japanese, and of course plenty of Americans as well.

There is compelling evidence that they were gearing up to surrender.

Do you think Japanese civilians wouldn't have died in droves if the US military were forced to take the whole of Nippon street by street?