re: Tucker Carlson has divided conservative social media with his take on the atomic bomb

I haven't watched the full interview. Was Tucker's main contention that the use of the atomic bomb was evil because it was dropped on civilians? Is he saying that it would have been morally justified if it had only been dropped on a military base or target? Did Japan have military bases or targets that were completely separate from their cities and civilian life?

Tucker is often mentioned as a possible political candidate, he's even been mentioned as a potential VP for Trump. Would Tucker not use atomic bombs under any circumstances? Mutually assured destruction is a deterrent, doesn't really work if someone is on the books saying that they'll never use their most powerful weapons under any circumstances. Our destruction is assured, but we might not destroy you back? It invites trouble, you could guarantee that our enemies would test that moral stance in a war.

Tucker is usually so spot on / dead on that it's very rare for him to have a take that I'm not sure I agree with him about. War is hell, it's kind of kill or be killed. Let's say Japan also had the atomic bomb, do we think that they would have hesitated to use it on us? Would they have used it on Pearl Harbor? And would they only have used it on our military targets? Or would they also have used it on our cities? What kind of enemy we're dealing with has to be taken into consideration, they might not be as moral about it.