| |
| ▲ | anonymars 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > they hadn't previously faced conventional attack Which, by the way, illustrates a related point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki had stiff competition. WWII was devastating, to cities and civilians all over the map. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I think the atomic bombs represented some 2 weeks worth of casualties in a war that lasted 300. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No sir that's not a school we're proposing to bomb, it's a complex containing both a school and a vehicle maintenance facility. So it's mixed, meaning there's valid logistical reasons to attack it. Yes, hundreds of children will perish in the attack, but the action will also provide us with legitimate benefits. Just try not to think about the former and focus on the latter. I'm sure no one in the future will judge us too harshly for the decision. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | So an automatic cheat code to win any and all conflicts is simply to put strategic assets in schools? | | |
| ▲ | Pay08 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You'd be surprised how many people's "morality" boils down to that. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is that what the Japanese were doing? (Bit of a pointless diversion though because this is a nuclear bomb we're talking about here. Not exactly a surgical strike.) | | |
| ▲ | Pay08 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes and no. They were doing that, but AFAIK they did so because it was deemed more efficient, not to use people as human shields. Also, at the time, there was no such thing as a surgical strike. |
|
|
|
|
