That’s an odd take, the atomic bombings were fire bombings intended to destroy cities, unless you think the US didn’t realize that would happen?

The atomic bombings were not fire bombings. Fire bombings, as the name suggests, use incendiaries.

The US was quite capable of destroying individual facilities. Is it legitimate to destroy a facility and everyone who works there? And their homes? And their families, and their kid’s schools and everyone who goes to those schools and their doctors, and the guy who sells them snacks on the way home and his family and all his in laws and their houses and their doctors.

Seems a bit excessive.

You know what the accuracy was for daytime bombing in WW2, even with fancy American bomb sights?

A mile.

A. Mile.

In Europe, British and American approaches differed because British bomber command put a greater emphasis on terror bombing against the Germans, while the American bomber command in Europe put a greater emphasis on industrial targets. You know what both approaches shared? Absolutely blanketing wide swathes of an area with ordnance because there was no guarantee of hitting a target otherwise.

Given that low level of accuracy available, I don't find arguments regarding collateral damage to be particularly compelling. No, what made US firebombing in Japan horrid was that American bomber command in Asia oriented quite explicitly towards attacking civilian targets. Incendiary testing in US trials was done against mock-ups of Japanese civilian housing, not industrial targets, even.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen as targets because of their military and industrial importance. However cruel and indiscriminate an atomic bombing may be, it was not simply pointed at civilians in the hopes of murdering as many as possible, unlike the fire bombings.