4 ms·
Who are you replying to? Or are you just choosing to take the most inhospitable interpretation of the parent, rather than the one that makes sense?
by corndoge 5y ago
Who are you replying to? Or are you just choosing to take the most inhospitable interpretation of the parent, rather than the one that makes sense?
- tehjoker 5y agoIn what world do we need to consider whether killing 100M people is okay? There is no such world.
- tashoecraft 5y agoThat would be if the US bombed every single inch of Russia. There was not that capability for a while. Not saying killing any people is okay, let alone millions or hundred million. But I don't believe the intention of a strategic first strike on the USSR was to kill every person. Knocking out 1/2 cities would have accomplished their goals, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their mind saving more millions from the believed inevitable global nuclear WW3. Again, not saying it's justified, you're just viewing this from the future where you can see the outcome.
- nsonha 5y ago> you're just viewing this from the future where you can see the outcome No we don't know what would happens if the US did that, because thank God they did not do it. We saw that 2 cities in Japan was bombed with no retaliation (I'm aware the bombing itself was a pretend retaliation). If anything is to be learnt from that it would be the US can get away with killing people.
- tehjoker 5y agoI think you would benefit from reading some of what Daniel Ellsberg has to say, a man who knew the secret war plans. https://www.ellsberg.net/doomsday/ https://www.ellsberg.net/doomsday/
- Arainach 5y agoThe war plans in the 60s against an industialized nuclear power were very different than the war plans in the 40s when von Neumann was advocating this.