I don’t like the phrase “no excuse”. I’m a particularist. E.g. There is no excuse for shooting someone. Shooting a person actively shooting up an elementary school is fine in my book.
I’m not saying there is no excuse to ever bomb someone. I’m saying there is no excuse for this specific bombing. The bombs killed between 150,000 to 220,000 people, mostly civilians.
You may be right in that using nukes was the wrong call. IMO, it seems like it was the best of bad options.
Saying there is no excuse and you disagree with something are two different things. The phrase “no excuse” is saying you think it is objectively wrong in a way that sounds like it isn’t just your opinion. I don’t think you mean it that way, I’m just explaining why I really don’t like that phrase.
As bad as the nukes were, the conventional bombing of Tokyo was probably worse. Over 100k civilians were killed with 1,000,000+ left homeless.
I don’t like the phrase “no excuse”. I’m a particularist. E.g. There is no excuse for shooting someone. Shooting a person actively shooting up an elementary school is fine in my book.
I’m not saying there is no excuse to ever bomb someone. I’m saying there is no excuse for this specific bombing. The bombs killed between 150,000 to 220,000 people, mostly civilians.
You may be right in that using nukes was the wrong call. IMO, it seems like it was the best of bad options.
Saying there is no excuse and you disagree with something are two different things. The phrase “no excuse” is saying you think it is objectively wrong in a way that sounds like it isn’t just your opinion. I don’t think you mean it that way, I’m just explaining why I really don’t like that phrase.
As bad as the nukes were, the conventional bombing of Tokyo was probably worse. Over 100k civilians were killed with 1,000,000+ left homeless.
The Intel Report on YouTube digs into this subject pretty well. I recommend giving it a listen/watch: https://youtu.be/xG4ks5f31Wg?si=iAv_tLpkgsE5WA9f