Cyclops and I had a discussion years ago in a thread about the relative morality on killing. Cyclops held the view -- as perhaps all left-thinking pacifists do -- that every killing was morally equivalent. I posited that there was a distinction to be made between a robber who shoots an innocent victim, and a police officer who shoots a robber to prevent him from killing an innocent victim. Cyclops equated the two killings; I do not.
The analogy isn't perfect. The Japanese people did not start WW-II for one thing. I mean, sure, if you had all the Japanese dickheads who did start the Pacific war on one island and wanted to nuke the one island, be my guest...
But as things actually developed, there was a problem with proportions and with the idea of a decent respect for the opinions of mankind (which our founders spoke of) which should have kicked in after two or three of the big fire-bomb raids, and as I've noted earlier, there is good reason to believe that we killed a million or more people in the one fire raid over Tokyo on March 9/10. Even given the rape of Nan-Ching and Pearl Harbor, there was still a problem of proportions there.
If somebody had thought about it a bit harder, it should have been possible to get the same terms we got after the third or fourth of those fire-bomb raids.