Hiroshima and Nagasaki had radiation, which wasn't well understood at the time. Many died in the following months from the "atomic bomb disease", now known to be acute radiation sickness, and many died in the following years from cancer, for a example.
Furthermore, all the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "and their children were (and still are) victims of severe discrimination when it comes to prospects of marriage or work due to public ignorance about the consequences of radiation sickness, with much of the public believing it to be hereditary or even contagious"[0].
voidUpdate•3d ago
defrost•3d ago
voidUpdate•3d ago
Yes, both of those events are terrible and shouldn't have happened, but which is "worse" probably depends on if you consider more deaths or worse deaths to be "worse"
defrost•3d ago
You've read the testimonies of those that survived Dresden and Tokyo then?
Again, dead is dead, injured by temperatures that melt flesh is the same regardless of heat source.
Is there any reason to elevate death by atomic weapon above death by carpet bombing HE's and incendiaries?
voidUpdate•3d ago
How about we both don't have nuclear weapons and also don't carpet bomb people?
anonymars•10m ago
If we're going to move the goalposts, why don't we just move them to the logical endpoint and proclaim "why don't we just not have wars"
Which, by the way, perhaps it's of interest to compare the frequency and severity of war before and after the invention of atomic weapons
Anyway, I'd be curious to hear your ethical solution to the trolley problem? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)
fragmede•3d ago
voidUpdate•3d ago