Texsox Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Slit the enemy's throat? Cool Kill twelve with an automatic weapon while helping your fellow soldiers to escape an ambush? Win a medal Kill sixteen with a "smart bomb"? Wow, look at our technology! Kill 200,000 with a couple atomic bombs? Hey, it saved lives! Chemical weapons? NOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!! Really? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I think there's definitely a lot of historic outrage and debate over the decision to deploy the atomic bomb in wartime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 06:10 AM) Slit the enemy's throat? Cool Kill twelve with an automatic weapon while helping your fellow soldiers to escape an ambush? Win a medal Kill sixteen with a "smart bomb"? Wow, look at our technology! Kill 200,000 with a couple atomic bombs? Hey, it saved lives! Chemical weapons? NOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!! Really? Why? WWI and then the Holocaust, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 08:17 AM) I think there's definitely a lot of historic outrage and debate over the decision to deploy the atomic bomb in wartime. Do more argue for the use of the atomic bombs in WW2 or chemical weapons? As you noted, there is debate over the use of atomic bombs in WW2. There is no debate on chemical weapons. We seek to destroy chemical weapons where we find them, but allow Christian countries to keep atomic weapons. Where is the logic in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Do more argue for the use of the atomic bombs in WW2 or chemical weapons? As you noted, there is debate over the use of atomic bombs in WW2. There is no debate on chemical weapons. We seek to destroy chemical weapons where we find them, but allow Christian countries to keep atomic weapons. Where is the logic in that? Since when was any of this logical? Chemical weapons are easier to create/make/distribute would be their worry. It's hard to carry around an atomic bomb, not to mention make one...at least right now. But again, none of it's logical...so don't try to bring logic into the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts