So all those things posted prior got ignored. Fantastic.
Author intent was only one out of 5 pieces of evidence I cited, others included the film saying verbatim the monster survived a nuclear detonation in its habitat (which drove it out into the surface), a book quite literally showing the nuclear explosion flash by and then Godzilla attacking the ship from the start of the film, books written about Godzilla's history and anatomy saying very explicitly hitting Godzilla with nuclear missiles is useless and that a nuclear detonation in immediate vicinity would also do nothing.
This is 1/5 things at most that is up to interpretation and even then, this whole case about 'well there's characteristics besides strength' in context is not a debunk.
Let's talk about them, shall we?
Radioactive presence, check. Leaves nuclear fallout? Check. Leaves a city devastated? Check. Burns and shatters everything it touches? Check. These other boxes are checked, so why then does it follow that he wouldn't be as powerful as a nuclear bomb, especially following the fact it talks about dealing with the threat as well? There is no direct counter to a nuclear bomb in real life, certainly not back in the 1950s. The phrase "if he were equal to an atomic bomb, we wouldn't know what to do" makes this clear. He's an atom bomb on legs.
So even pretending the other interpretations are more valid, it doesn't debunk mine at all and it's quite simply the lowest hanging fruit you can pick at to not accept the pretty blatant stuff.