5 ms·
Sure, just imagine if Germany had gotten nukes first. Would they have never used them again? How many countries, when given damn near absolute power, wouldn't
by vitiral 4y ago
Sure, just imagine if Germany had gotten nukes first. Would they have never used them again?
How many countries, when given damn near absolute power, wouldn't have used it to directly conquer?
- gaucheries 4y agothis just isn't an argument.
- gaucheries 4y ago
- Otek 4y agoYou asked for argument and he gave you one. You said it’s not an argument without backing it up anyhow why it’s not an argument > “lol”
- gaucheries 4y agohope you have a good day, OK? you are loved.
- lflflfdk 4y agoit is both an argument and the historical reason, the Manhattan Project existed because the US didnt want fascists to have nukes first
- toastercat 4y agoI disagree. They are seemingly rhetorical questions, but the answers to those questions are not immediately as obvious as they are implied to be.
- lflflfdk 4y ago[dead]
- toastercat 4y agoThis is more conjecture than a compelling argument, in my opinion.
- pwinnski 4y agoSo many answers seem to be rooted in the 50-year Cold War period, and none of them seem to address the 30 years since. If you have two evils, you choose the lesser of two evils. If you eliminate the greater of the two evils, all you're left with is evil. Saying that the country which dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations is better than a hypothetical in which some other other country dropped more of them, it's... I mean, we're still the only country that ever dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations!
- vitiral 4y agoI try very hard to not have an opinion, since I know that I know very little. But the person didn't ask for my opinion, just "an argument." Things are rarely as simple as good and evil. But if you want an argument against certainty, there are many.