4 ms·

but when the biggest western superpower, the only one to USE nukes, and on civilians at that talks, it has the moral high ground. It also does not topple regime

but when the biggest western superpower, the only one to USE nukes, and on civilians at that talks, it has the moral high ground. It also does not topple regimes, asassinates its own citizens and others with drones, and just recently bombed an innocent families car while surprise pulling out of a country it had laid seige to. Yeah, moral high ground.

genman 3y ago
I'm tired of this nukes argument. The morality arises from having a great power and not using it to destroy everything. US could have used nukes against Russia or against any other country. They did not. But perhaps they should have considering how much evil it enabled to prosper in Russia and China, resulting in torturous deaths of tens of millions of people.
- user_7832 3y ago
  I fail to understand how you are (trying to?) justify the US nuking Russia or China. I’m not from any of these countries but I don’t follow your logic. Should some other country be permitted to nuke the US if the IS “became evil”?
  - genman 3y ago
    I am not justifying as it didn't happen. But for example general Patton realized that Russian communists were equal or maybe even greater evil than the Nazis were. Now we know for sure that he had the right understanding - tens of millions people were murdered by Russian communists. More over they exported their murderous ideology into other countries causing even wider human suffering. My comment argues that if US had waged war against Russia after WW2 to liberate Russia from communist dictatorship then most likely nukes would have been used, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths (mind you - the nukes of the day were small in comparison), but avoiding tens of millions. But perhaps the nukes would not have been used as despite their fame, their real utility is small (if you are trying to minimize civilian causalities). We'll never know. My main argument is that the usage of nukes by itself doesn't include any moral values - it is necessary to understand the context in what these weapons are used.
- redeeman 3y ago
  and what do we think about bombing civilians? what do we think about the entire government eagerly covering up the epstein shit? why did the trial not ask who the customers of the crimes were? face it, the US (and all governemnts im guessing) has no moral high ground, with the US being one of the worst (maybe not the wort, but certainly top 10 material). You may think you sit on a high horse, but you do not, and you'll never convince anyone else you do
  - genman 3y ago
    Indeed more and more conspiracy theorist have found their way into HN.
    - redeeman 3y ago
      I once was lost but now am found. With arguments like these, so persuasive, so insightful and relevant. I bow down to your most powerful debating style. Sir(or Xir or whatever you prefer), I bow down to you.

genman 3y ago

I'm tired of this nukes argument. The morality arises from having a great power and not using it to destroy everything. US could have used nukes against Russia or against any other country. They did not. But perhaps they should have considering how much evil it enabled to prosper in Russia and China, resulting in torturous deaths of tens of millions of people.

user_7832 3y ago
I fail to understand how you are (trying to?) justify the US nuking Russia or China. I’m not from any of these countries but I don’t follow your logic. Should some other country be permitted to nuke the US if the IS “became evil”?
- genman 3y ago
  I am not justifying as it didn't happen. But for example general Patton realized that Russian communists were equal or maybe even greater evil than the Nazis were. Now we know for sure that he had the right understanding - tens of millions people were murdered by Russian communists. More over they exported their murderous ideology into other countries causing even wider human suffering. My comment argues that if US had waged war against Russia after WW2 to liberate Russia from communist dictatorship then most likely nukes would have been used, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths (mind you - the nukes of the day were small in comparison), but avoiding tens of millions. But perhaps the nukes would not have been used as despite their fame, their real utility is small (if you are trying to minimize civilian causalities). We'll never know. My main argument is that the usage of nukes by itself doesn't include any moral values - it is necessary to understand the context in what these weapons are used.
redeeman 3y ago
and what do we think about bombing civilians? what do we think about the entire government eagerly covering up the epstein shit? why did the trial not ask who the customers of the crimes were? face it, the US (and all governemnts im guessing) has no moral high ground, with the US being one of the worst (maybe not the wort, but certainly top 10 material). You may think you sit on a high horse, but you do not, and you'll never convince anyone else you do
- genman 3y ago
  Indeed more and more conspiracy theorist have found their way into HN.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    I once was lost but now am found. With arguments like these, so persuasive, so insightful and relevant. I bow down to your most powerful debating style. Sir(or Xir or whatever you prefer), I bow down to you.