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?

I think there's definitely a lot of historic outrage and debate over the decision to deploy the atomic bomb in wartime.

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.

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?

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.