Message from @Quarantine_Zone
Discord ID: 563496869179817984
The alternative was firebombing dozens of cities
When will you people learn to never do balkan threads
The alternative was stop being evil retards who are wiling to nuke civilian cities
The thing is this. Last thing I'm saying about the japanese
So you want to firebomb the cities instead?
This reminds me of the arguments for abortion
Oh, its not exactly a balkan thread, my bad
>do you want the child to live without being loved?
What I'm saying is the US was going to bomb cities no matter what
Even that is more defensible than nuking two cities
The military decided they could either nuke or firebomb. Nuking was going to end the war quickly. Firebombing would have lasted months and killed more people.
I don't think so
The military just didn't care about civilians
Dude, firebombing would have killed more people
And decided to drop big bombs on the ebil antisemites
Have you seen the results of napalm bombs on cities?
We would have destroyes the same cities
Well, I would see the results of nukes, but there is no city to look at
Plus more
No, you don't get it
Why do you think people and military talk constantly about the threat of nukes and not the threat of "firebombing"?
Sure thing
I'm sorry, but that just looks like the cheapest excuse one could ever make
Because nukes are fast and, in the present day, too many countries have them with too much tension, so one nuke could set off many countries nuking
"Sure, I have pretty much erased your city form Earth, but it was for the best, believe me!"
Firebombing would have killed the citizens too, and the citizens of Tokyo and other cities likely
Would you rather have 2 cities dead or 5 cities dead?
I'm going to offer a more plausible alternative:
The people in charge, like they do to this day, couldn't care less about civilians
One method was slow, typical, far less destructive.
The other was "big bomb on da chinks"
So "why not?"
9/10 would nuke again
Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that firebombing was devastating Japan too and massive numbers were already dying at the hands of fire bombing
One method was much more effective than the other
And I'm 99% sure that no bombing would have caused even a fraction of the damage nor consequences
You can keep thinking that
Neither of us has a PhD in WW2 history
So our opinions are likely useless
I can keep thinking that because everyone can see what a nuke does