4 ms·
It makes sense in the context of WWII, where conventional bombing campaigns killed people at a slower rate that atomic. Also, it just took a localized atomic ca
by euroclydon 11y ago
It makes sense in the context of WWII, where conventional bombing campaigns killed people at a slower rate that atomic. Also, it just took a localized atomic campaign to cause that war to cease everywhere, whereas increased conventional bombing in all theaters would have not ended the war so quickly.
There might be a modern analogy to be drawn: "It's more moral to torturously murder a few enemies on internet video, such that the rest of your enemies are sufficiently scared to engage, than it is to try to engage them all in battle."
- veidr 11y agoWow!! Did you do like, debate club in school? Because even though I stand by my statements made in this thread so far, I am pretty sure you win. (Although I do think there is still a point in there somewhere to be made about the underlying reasons the conflict is occurring in the first place. If you started it to implement your vision of a religious caliphate, revive the slave trade, etc... how does that change the morality of it?)