3 ms·

Yes, but due to ethical considerations. One doesn't have to agree with the outcome of his reasoning, but it's well established that his reasons were ethical, no

• sudosysgen 5y ago
  The ethical considerations of killing 50+ million?
  • marton78 5y ago
    He was convinced that without an American preemptive strike, even more would die. He was wrong of course, as we now know, but it wasn't clear at that time. There's an episode of Hardcore History on this topic, I think the title was "Destroyer of Worlds".
    • sudosysgen 5y ago
      It was pretty clear at the time that the Soviets had no intention or capability to destroy the US in such a way that the US would not able to respond with a nuclear strike. He was noted by his colleagues to be exceptionally unperturbed by his work. He recommended that the US strike Kyoto despite having no military significance to speak of. He himself admitted that he was ideologically violently opposed to the existence of the USSR. It's clear that his motives were not about minimizing death and destruction.
      • silexia 5y ago
        Socialism is evil, but not as evil as killing tens of millions of humans.