Do you think that every weapon is ok as long as there is no
other way of winning with less casualty's?

I think in the situation in question, the first atomic weapon was the best choice. The rest of the question is a slippery slope question, and not relevant-- the answer would be "case by case".

How many Japanese civilians died due to US attacks and how many US civilians died due to attacks from Japan?

That's completely irrelevant, since Japan lacked the air and sea power to attack the U.S. mainland, and lost the ability to reach Hawaii right after Pearl Harbor. In every country they could reach, they inflicted massive civilian casualties. (They're responsible for upwards of 7,000,000 Chinese civilian casualties, and 4,000,000 civilian deaths during their occupation and forced labor programs within Indonesia.)

The Japanese lost an estimated 600,000 civilians during the war, almost all in the late push in Spring/Summer 1945, after repeated refusals to surrender. Again, the Allies exhausted other options, barring a conventional invasion, before the decision was made to use the atomic weapon.

How would you have ended the war, then? It's a fair question if you criticize the US for using atomic weapons there. What's the alternative? Everything I can think of would have cost a lot more lives.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com