3 ms·
There was a time that was said about nukes. They didn't really make sense. We were only able to make minuscule amounts of U-235 / Plutonium at very high cost...
by DocTomoe 1y ago
There was a time that was said about nukes. They didn't really make sense. We were only able to make minuscule amounts of U-235 / Plutonium at very high cost... and had we wanted evil bombs, we had a thousand ways already to make them.
Didn't stop people then. And it won't stop sufficiently criminal governments today.
- hedora 1y agoLook up comparative damage stats for Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki in WWII. The nukes were nothing compared to firebombing. Now do the same for Gaza and anywhere other than WWII Warsaw. Carpet bombing isn’t necessary if you can aim with precision at the support infrastructure of occupied structures.
- DocTomoe 1y agoYou're making my point: We had comparatively worse and cheaper ways to butcher each others. And yet, we build nuclear bombs. Carpet bombing is not meant for eliminating military targets - it's an act of state-sponsored terrorism to get a population to rise against its leaders. Only, it has been proven over and over again: That doesn't work and often results in the exact opposite, making them rally behind the flag against the barbarous enemy who would attack civilians. Which is why we stopped doing that. Mostly.
- bawolff 1y agoI'm not saying we already have nukes in the sense that will stop people from wanting a better bomb. I'm saying we already have a much better bomb than antimatter so why would people invest in making a much shittier bomb? And we don't even have to reach for nukes. Dynamite is also a better choice for blowing things up than antimatter.