I can grasp the anger even if I can't claim to understand it on the level of having ties to those who were victims of Japanese aggression. What I don't understand is the attempt to rationalize that bombing more civilians would accomplish defense of a homeland or deradicalize Japan.

The best I can gather is it's the control the US got over them after the end of the war—like it violently did to so many parts of the world in post-WWII—that ensured the failure of any attempts to deradicalize.

Mind you, I'm not saying that fighting back in a war is invalid. Far from it. But nuking two civilian cities (no matter what you want to say about the kind of people living in them) is a war crime. Let's remember that this was not something carried out by liberation forces of the victims of Japan. It was something carried out by a stronger colonial/imperial force who has easily been far more brutal than Japan in its history. We're not talking about a people struggling for liberation and trying to judge their actions after the fact when they're under existential threat. We're talking about a head of empire who had essentially already won and still did it anyway. The same empire that in today's world has destroyed hospitals in Iran.

Why carry water for the kind of brutality an empire like that does? Because it's convenient for revenge?