Message from @Quarantine_Zone
Discord ID: 563504645100666883
We didn't know about residual radiation effects at the time
It is clear what is the ultimate show of cruelty
Percentage? Idk, I can show
Give me time to crunch numbers
roughly 100%
If it helps you see what I mean, we *did* firebomb Tokyo
Guess how many died?
Around 100000
80k-100k. It's hard to know the exact numbers
Yeah, that's more than either nuke
And its population was aorund 5 million
It is clear to me that nobody cared about hypothesis of how many victims there would be with one of other method. The nukes were the most powerful weapon. It doesn't matter how much firebombing, or swords, or whatever, kills in the long term. Everything kills "a lot" in the long term, but that doesn't make the method more effective. They just had the nukes and were willing to use them because they were better at their job.
Actually a little larger. Depends on sources
But if you take into account other military losses
The population of Tokyo dropped by roughly 50% from 1940-1945
Now, much of that can be attributed to drafting and military deaths, surely
Speculation about "what would have caused more victims in the long term" is meaningless, because the moral implications do not depend on long term number of victims, which are, as I mentioned, just speculation.
What? Yes they do
As if the US military didn't consider long term death tolls
That is like saying that dropping a nuke on every city on earth would be merciful, since otherwise they will keep reproducing, which enables more deaths and eventually the number of, lets say, murders, usrpasses that of the original popujlation
Hah
That's not even close
Were talking about death counts as a result of bombing
The US military didn't care about anything beyond the equivalent to dying for Israel
We are talking about death toll
Which would lead to more deaths? Firebombing a bunch of cities, or destroying two?
Not doing anything leads to more deaths, since the population survivies and the deaths keep amassing
How do you not kill 7% of people right next to a nuclear bomb?
Firebombing a bunch of cities would have caused more deaths. You can go do the math
Orthobro, at 1000 ft, some may have survived if they were well sheltered somehow
I have to do econ and spanish homework.
I'm out.
GG's
Again, not doing anything causes more deaths because the high population keeps a periodical murder count
They just used whatever was more cruel and destructives
the japanese were the ones who cared about their poppulation and surrendered
It is clear that the Us ould have just killed the entire country to death. They just used whatever was more effective
The pic in question that urged this damage control