I was clearly making a hypothetical point that there is a difference between targeting a building housing the enemy say and dropping a nuclear weapon to “destroy a city”. But your reaction is telling.
What is the difference in destroying a city in a moment and destroying a city over several months (in terms of human casualties)?
More Iraqis have died of war-related violence, both in raw numbers and proportionately, than Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the single moments of holocaust. More Iraqis have died even if you include the Japanese people who died of radiation exposurein the months and years afterward.
What’s “telling” about bringing this up? Let me guess.
Does anyone want to stick to the point I raised in the incongruity between the two arguments? or play word games to jockey for place in salt creeks venerated heirarchy.
Your point was almost impossible to discern, but from what I’ve read since, the answer appears to be “No.”
As I said—use the search function so you can present this old argument in some new way.