No problem. I always try to remember Hanlon's Razor. If you had argued subsequently with no sources to back you up I'd have been irate from then. I don't really care so much about these artificial distinctions everybody makes in war, with things like civilians vs. military, spies vs. combatants, nukes vs. conventional weapons...Ninjamedic said:Ah I see, thanks for politely correcting me rather than flaming.Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:Snip
In that case i retract my statement.
Soldiers are some mother's sons too. They're not more or less people than civilians. Nuclear weapons don't kill you any deader than conventional weapons. If you gave me a choice between getting vaporized in Nagasaki and getting chopped up with a machete in Somalia I'd pick the nuke every time.
We're awfully hung up as a species on parceling out our murder only to people who we can convince ourselves have volunteered for it and doing it in whatever way the cool kids are doing it this century. Our current style is to do it as cleanly as possible and to use chemical explosives if possible. Nuclear explosives are right out and chemicals applied directly to the victim aren't cool. They must instead be used to propel bits of metal into a human body. A hundred years from now maybe we'll use nothing but poison gases and be obsessed with killing people without leaving marks on them because a pretty corpse is more humane to the family.
I guess all I was saying with that last paragraph is that Hiroshima isn't more evil than Dresden because it was a nuke and not a chemical bomb, and it's not more evil than Normandy just because it killed children instead of conscripted teenagers and twenty-somethings with rifles in their hands.