Unless their are kinds that are not.
We now know that there were many unknowns at the time about the power of those particular bombs. In my opinion they were strategic and discriminate.
Tactical nuclear weapons do have fallout, like any nuclear weapon, but with tactical it's limited. There are cases (e.g. caves in Afghanistan) where they could've been used and collateral damage would've been minimal if at all.
There were no tactical nuclear bombs back then. There were very few at all due to limited amounts of uranium and plutonium. Conventional bombs would not have had the same strategic effect that the nuclear ones did. We have non-nuclear weapons today that can cause more damage than those did.
We now know that there were many unknowns at the time about the power of those particular bombs. In my opinion they were strategic and discriminate.
Tactical nuclear weapons do have fallout, like any nuclear weapon, but with tactical it's limited. There are cases (e.g. caves in Afghanistan) where they could've been used and collateral damage would've been minimal if at all.
There were no tactical nuclear bombs back then. There were very few at all due to limited amounts of uranium and plutonium. Conventional bombs would not have had the same strategic effect that the nuclear ones did. We have non-nuclear weapons today that can cause more damage than those did.
So in your opinion, the atomic bomb was "discriminate" in spite of the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives that were lost. By what measure do you formulate your opinion that is was in fact discriminate? How do you get to that conclusion without bringing "necessity" which we can hopefully agree is an irrelevant factor when determining if someone is isolated or discriminate versus widespread or indiscriminate?