Atomic warfare treated differently from Chemical and Germ warfare because of its commercial potential

The western Allies spent more on chemical and germ weapons than they ever did on atomic weapons - yet they never used them.

But surprisingly, the only thing that left and right wing historians of the decision to drop the Bomb agree upon is that part of the reason why it was dropped was the fear that Congress would wonder why a $ 2 billion war-ending weapon was never used to prevent massive American soldier casualties in any invasion of Japan.

But billions were also spent on germ and chemical warfare weapons and they too would have ended the war quickly.

So why weren't they used ?

Why was it unacceptable to kill Japanese babies by gas poisoning or germ toxin poisoning , but acceptable to kill them by boiling them alive and by radiation poisoning ?

The Big Lie in the atomic saga is how America's smartest scientists , generals, diplomats and politicians all got together and first sold themselves (and then the wider public) the complete lie that the A-Bomb was strictly a blast weapon, without anything but minor fire and radiation effects.

The smartest guys in the room - the masters of the multi-universe - all taken in by greed.

I believe that America - and Britain - and France - and Russia all treated atomic issues differently because this horrible weapon, unlike mustard gas and deadly viruses , seemingly had great peacetime industrial potential ---- if only people could be misled into believing it to be highly safe.

(Ironically ,mustard gas  remains a basic cancer fighting medicine and germ warfare did spin off many improvements in general vaccine production.)

But it wasn't then (and it isn't now) and they full knew it - as early documents make clear.

But , as always, money talks and the Lie was begun ....