Was the US justified in using nuclear bombs on 2 separate civilian cities?
AFTER firebombing hundreds of thousands of civilians to death in Tokyo?
Was the US justified in using nuclear bombs on 2 separate civilian cities?
AFTER firebombing hundreds of thousands of civilians to death in Tokyo?
2 wasn't enough
Was the Uk justified in bombing unarmed cities?
AFTER Hitler offered peace many times?
I never expected a leaf to post this. Good on ya
I thought Hitler called for the execution of the man who went to GB to broker a peace deal
Besides, proportionality is a thing, the UK was heavily bombed by the Germans.
What did the Japanese do in the US besides 'pearl harbour'
the gamma rays turning them into lolis was the justification
It was a weapon used to bring the enemy to submission. In that sense, it was justified.
If you're going to cry about civilians, all the countries did it. Even if it was illegal, no one cared. It's horrible but it would have been foolish not to. Having a moral high ground doesn't win wars. It doesn't make massacres, rapes and genocides okay, just know there's a scale to these sort of things.
Would Hitler have been justified if he got the bomb first and used it to win the war? Is it justified to use them with inpunity now? The answer to all three questions is no.
fuck gooks
yes