Uh, yeah, no. Strategic bombing was not a war crime, it was an universally accepted weapon everyone used to the extent their resources (in practice airforce makeups) allowed those days. It was certainly horribly inefficient in achieving its actual stated goals and based on seriously flawed theories and assumptions but that only became apparent in hindsight (which is a major reason pinpoint surgical accuracy became a major airpower developement goal thereafter).
Don't know if you could call dropping the A-Bombs 'strategic', seeing as Japan was already having huge swathes of its population, including senior citizens and children, being brutally murdered by firebombs. And even at the time, the U.S. high command had a very good idea of just how unnecessary the bombings were going to be- you can't exactly drag up the 'plausible deniability during wartime' defense when multiple people involved in the highest rungs of the war effort at the time actively and publicly declared that the bombings were unnecessary and brutal, including Dwight freaking Eisenhower. It isn't a matter of debate or an ambiguous issue, there is a laundry list of criticisms to be made against the supposed 'strategic' value of dropping the bomb- criticisms made not just by Japan, but by intellectuals and governments across the world, including multiple rulings by the International Court of Justice. The U.S. could have very easily just kept up their standard bombing strategy, or just informed Japan about the fact that they had the bomb in order to force a quicker decision. The U.S. knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender, and were looking for ways to do so upto four months before the bombs were dropped. There is no justification for what they did- the only reason it isn't formally judged and condemned as a war crime on the level of Auschwitz is because a) the U.S suppressed all criticism and used its heft to create distorted narratives about 'military necessity', b) international law hadn't remotely predicted how insane weaponry would become during the second world war and thus didn't have enough specific procedure regarding classification, even though the use of a bomb involving significant radiation counts under the prohibition of 'poisonous weapons'- most conventions regarding the use of nuclear weapons were written one month after the bombing, which is the only reason why the U.S. got away on a technicality, and one that many still feel is unjustified. The real reason they dropped the bomb was to strike fear into the rest of the world, assert their nuclear power and to prevent Russia from taking credit for inducing the Japanese surrender, which is why they carried out the bombings two days before Russia formally declared war on Japan and three months before their planned land invasion. On top of all this damning evidence and admissions, there is the fact that the Nagasaki bombings were genuinely an act of brutality- even if you distort facts and realities enough to justify dropping one nuke without warning, how exactly do you justify dropping another? The US has never provided a plausible answer, and the best available one is that they wanted to test out their plutonium bomb, since the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium variant. That's all it was- an experiment, a demonstration, a way to kick off the arms race one length ahead of Russia. The only reason it isn't openly classified as such is because it'd be bad PR for the Good Guys from 'Murica who defeated the Nazis to reveal that they gave just as little of a shit about lives that their enemies did. There's really no debate to be had here- not when the entire reason the bombs were dropped was because Truman a) wanted to pull one over on Russia and b) was uninformed about how terrible the effects would be, but had to stick to his guns afterward..
