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

They most certainly tried to figure out these types of hypotheticals.

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

Luther here is playing the character of a Jew. He's speaking as if he is a Jew in that time accusing Jesus.

It's like quoting Luke 23:5 "He is causing riots by his teaching whereever he goes!" And then saying that Luke accused Jesus of causing riots

So, yes, it is taken out of context because Luther didn't say it as himself. He was impersonating an ancient Jew to show how they accused and thought of Jesus.

This is explained easily when you draw from the original source of the quote which is a 1536 sermon (WA 41, 647).

Lol how do I respond to that

What are some good books and articles on Legionarism?

For My Legionaries

lmao sauce on your profile picture?

is that an edit?

You talking to me?