• the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have no intentions of changing your mind…

    If you can’t tell the difference in “just bombing” and what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki… well that says more about you than anything else.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s sorta hard to learn about the argument or the difference when people outright refuse to spell it out.

      If you can’t tell the difference in “just bombing” and what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki… well that says more about you than anything else.

      Of course my opinion says things about me. But like I said, I don’t see the big difference to conventional weapons. That’s why I’m asking you to explain it to me ffs

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t worse than Dresden, Tokyo, or several other bombings (especially Cambodia in the Vietnam war). They are notable in terms of being a nuke, but in terms of damage overall unremarkable.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is my feeling too. With the number of killed and the destruction they caused they don’t seem that different from conventional weapons.

        I’m not sure what makes the nukes worse and this guy just outright refused to even explain it to me since they didn’t feel likely they’d manage to convince me. Kinda infuriating, especially when I’m genuinely interested in understanding the argument.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of focus is in those bombs and generally the complete destruction of conventional weapons is glossed over or even ignored. Especially when it was the allies targeting civilian infrastructure.