Steven and Lia are debating the analogies. She said the attacks are more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said they're more like Pearl Harbor.
Both attacks were made in peacetime, Steven is right. Lia points out that PH was a military target and yesterday's attack was a civilian target.
Steven limits the casualty count from H and N, but Lia rightly points out that there were many longer lasting effects which must be weighed as well. However, Steven is right in saying many more Japanese (and Americans) would have died in a conventional attack and invasion of Japan.
Steven rightly points out that this will mobilize the US in anger.
Steven is right in saying that H and N were a response to a war which Japan started.
Overall, and this is a pretty mechanical analysis, the PH comparison is more apt, as far as it goes.
However, and this is where I add my part, the likely originating reasons for these surprise attacks bear different weight. The US had embargoed Japan. We had that right. They chose to attack. We were justified (from a certain point of view) in retaliating with lethal and final force.
If some significant portion of this attack is motivated by our selfish and high-handed dealings in the Middle East, aiding and abetting the oppression of others, then we must lay at least some of the blame for this attack at our own door.