Geopolitics

See, this is getting frustrating, because this has nothing to do with emotions, I have no skin in the game, I am not here to defend US "war crimes" or "bad actions." I came name you 20 things that US have done that are actually indefensible and inhumane.

Lineback I/II, Rolling Thunder, Laos/Cambodia Bombings, Contra Affair, United Fruit, 53 Coup, I could go on and on. Simply put, Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not belong on this list.

They are not false and emotionally charged numbers at all and the highlighted part shows there is some severe ignorance on this topic which I will go into.

By 1945 the US had four options to defeat Japan.

1) Diplomatic attempts.

2) Operation Downfall/Olympic - Invasion of mainland Japan.

3) Continue Strategic bombing over years until Japanese capitulation.

4) Nukes.


1) Was already pretty much a non starter. The japanese reached out to the Soviets to negotiate and the Soviets said that their demands were insane. Some feelers were sent to US but the US felt again they were insane demands and quickly gave up on any attempts.

2) This is where your contentions really matter. To highlight the bolded - this was not the case. The Japanese's main fighting force was stranded in China/Mengkuko and Korea, there was no way to bring them back to the home islands. What was left of Japanese Army in Japan were a few professional units, some ragtag militia with rifles and...civilians forced to fight. What would have happened when the US invaded was not soldier vs soldier - it would be civilians (men, women and children) charging into American lines armed with maybe a rifle and fecking bamboo sticks. You think I'm joking? Here are some photos of High school girls and Widows being trained with how to charge Trench lines with Bamboo sticks.

gh503x1x2vo21.jpg

japanese-civilians-training-with-bamboo-spears-to-be-used-v0-3mc4iq98nuhb1.jpg


During the battle of Okinawa, this was actually implemented. After it was obvious the Island was military defeated, what was left of the Japanese forces forced civilians to charge American lines with fecking nothing but sticks and stones. They ordered civilians at gunpoint to throw stones at American soldiers from windows, gave grenades and rifles with one clip to the men who had not been conscripted. After the total defeat of Okinawa, Japanese soldiers went around telling families to commit suicide. Those who refused were sometimes rounded up and put in a wooden building and the building set on fire, others were shot by what was left of the Japanese Army. The population of Okinawa was 280,000 pre war. During the battle of Okinawa 240,000 Japanese died. We don't have numbers of how many people were in Okinawa at the time but even so this is a casualty figure that is abhorrent.

There were documented plans, distributed throughout, giving instructions to replicate this when the mainland was invaded.

This was the reality - this is not emotion. The Japanese already did this at Okinawa. This was heavily discussed in the minutes meetings when discussing whether to use the bomb or not. The sheer devastation and civilian brutality seen at Okinawa really impacted the decision to use the bomb. More Japanese civilians died in Okinawa than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

That was one small island. Not even in the main island chain. So the point that a high casualty rate with Soldier vs soldier was the better choice is just absolutely bullshit because the actual Japanese army was stranded across the sea and the Japanese were planning, and had already done so, to send wave after wave of civilians with nothing but sticks and stones and occasionally a rifle against US Marine Divisions. The plan was quite literally, "Fight until we're all dead, or they don't want to kill anymore."


3) This was just continuing what they were doing (which took far more lives than actual Nukes did) and it would cost far more civilian lives.

4) This was what was done.

What would you have done guys? Seriously? Do you genuinely think that Option 2 or option 4 were the better options?

We can discuss history all we want and I disagree with some of your points, but regardless of whatever hypotheticals, one thing happened: the US killed countless civilians in a major war crime. Calling this crime mercy is absolutely insane and if you can't see it, I don't know what else to tell you.
 
You do know mercy is an actual word with a definition, right?

Here's what the oxford dictionary says:

"compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
"the boy was screaming and begging for mercy"

an event to be grateful for, because it prevents something unpleasant or provides relief from suffering.
"his death was in a way a mercy"

(especially of a journey or mission) performed out of a desire to relieve suffering.
modifier noun: mercy
"mercy missions to refugees caught up in the fighting" "

I think it's a stretch to fit any one of those descriptions to the atomic bombings of Japan and I don't know why you've chosen to die on this weird hill

I don't know why you think this is a huge misuse of the word when many very reputable military historians describe the best of a bunch of shit options as "The merciful choice".

Anthony Beevor quite literally refers to Franco not executing political prisoners but making them live the rest of their lives in prison as "A rare show of mercy", despite obviously the latter option being still absolutely awful. I don't even agree with Beevor in this regard, there's other options here like, how about not jailing political opponents at all.

But mercy is a term that is very commonly use in military history deciphering war planners doing something bad rather than something much much worse.
 
I don't know why you think this is a huge misuse of the word when many very reputable military historians describe the best of a bunch of shit options as "The merciful choice".

Anthony Beevor quite literally refers to Franco not executing political prisoners but making them live the rest of their lives in prison as "A rare show of mercy", despite obviously the latter option being still absolutely awful. I don't even agree with Beevor in this regard, there's other options here like, how about not jailing political opponents at all.

But mercy is a term that is very commonly use in military history deciphering war planners doing something bad rather than something much much worse.

You just call it the least bad option and leave it as that. Calling the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of souls a mercy is spectacularly callous. Walk it back, admit that your phrasing was thoughtless and then move on.
 
We can discuss history all we want and I disagree with some of your points, but regardless of whatever hypotheticals, one thing happened: the US killed countless civilians in a major war crime. Calling this crime mercy is absolutely insane and if you can't see it, I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm not really sure how US committed a war crime here the international definitions of war crimes were defined 4 years after the bombs were dropped. You can't go around and retroactively decide on what is a war crime and what isn't. Otherwise you might as well write off anything prior to 1700AD as just nation states consistently committing war crimes on one another.

Again, it's also crazy to me that people focus so much on the Fat man and Little boy when the Tokyo firebombing, (which i posted data a few pages ago), caused far more cruelty death and destruction than the two bombs combined. Why do you see those two as "war crimes" but, for example, Firebombing of Tokyo or the Bombing of Osaka/Nagoya is hardly ever discussed?

If your argument is "I think Strategic bombing is inhumane and should have been outlawed since the break of the War" it's a coherent argument to be made there. The focus on the two bombs as being retroactive "War Crimes" is odd especially given the sheer scale of destruction that the prior 5 years of Strategic bombing did to every nation that participated apart from the USA.
 
I don't know why you think this is a huge misuse of the word when many very reputable military historians describe the best of a bunch of shit options as "The merciful choice".

Anthony Beevor quite literally refers to Franco not executing political prisoners but making them live the rest of their lives in prison as "A rare show of mercy", despite obviously the latter option being still absolutely awful. I don't even agree with Beevor in this regard, there's other options here like, how about not jailing political opponents at all.

But mercy is a term that is very commonly use in military history deciphering war planners doing something bad rather than something much much worse.

Man alive. Honestly. Keep all of your opinions. Hold them dear. Nobody is taking them away.

But you used a word incorrectly. By definition and consensus. It’s ok. Just pick a different one.
 
You just call it the least bad option and leave it as that. Calling the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of souls a mercy is spectacularly callous. Walk it back, admit that your phrasing was thoughtless and then move on.

Okay fine, but they practically mean the same thing in this regard anyway. This is just semantics. If people are that upset by it, treat it as "The best option on the table given every option was bad".

But if this use of the term bothers people then they're going to have a hard time reading Historical books on WWII for example. Beevor, who is one of the most reputable WWII historians, refers to soldiers dying of cold as a mercy due to the long march of the survivors in the Russian winter.

David Glantz describes Russian soldiers executing German soldiers with a bullet to the head who were not likely to survive medical treatment as "Mercy killings".
 
I'm not really sure how US committed a war crime here the international definitions of war crimes were defined 4 years after the bombs were dropped. You can't go around and retroactively decide on what is a war crime and what isn't. Otherwise you might as well write off anything prior to 1700AD as just nation states consistently committing war crimes on one another.

Again, it's also crazy to me that people focus so much on the Fat man and Little boy when the Tokyo firebombing, (which i posted data a few pages ago), caused far more cruelty death and destruction than the two bombs combined. Why do you see those two as "war crimes" but, for example, Firebombing of Tokyo or the Bombing of Osaka/Nagoya is hardly ever discussed?

If your argument is "I think Strategic bombing is inhumane and should have been outlawed since the break of the War" it's a coherent argument to be made there. The focus on the two bombs as being retroactive "War Crimes" is odd especially given the sheer scale of destruction that the prior 5 years of Strategic bombing did to every nation that participated apart from the USA.

I'm not sure what you're on about regarding the first paragraph. The term genocide is less than 100 years old, does that mean before that no genocides occurred? It's a very silly argument to say something didn't happen before some legal definition of it was written on a piece of paper.

As for the rest, I'm more than happy to call those bombings war crimes. Why the focus on the nukes? Because that was the topic of discussion.

I also notice that you didn't try to defend the word mercy.
 
Okay fine, but they practically mean the same thing in this regard anyway. This is just semantics. If people are that upset by it, treat it as "The best option on the table given every option was bad".

But if this use of the term bothers people then they're going to have a hard time reading Historical books on WWII for example. Beevor, who is one of the most reputable WWII historians, refers to soldiers dying of cold as a mercy due to the long march of the survivors in the Russian winter.

David Glantz describes Russian soldiers executing German soldiers with a bullet to the head who were not likely to survive medical treatment as "Mercy killings".

The japanese civilians in hiroshima and nagasaki weren't about to die of cold or from insufficient medical treatment. They were getting on with their lives (difficult as they were because of the war) when they were obliterated.

You need to see a difference here, mate. You really need to.
 
I'm not sure what you're on about regarding the first paragraph. The term genocide is less than 100 years old, does that mean before that no genocides occurred? It's a very silly argument to say something didn't happen before some legal definition of it was written on a piece of paper.

As for the rest, I'm more than happy to call those bombings war crimes. Why the focus on the nukes? Because that was the topic of discussion.

I also notice that you didn't try to defend the word mercy.

I have done so for the past page and I'm tired of having to do so - I use that language as it's the same language that's used in a lot of the books I read on similar contexts. If people have an issue with the use of language, I can accept that and whilst I might not understand, this is a forum and I'm happy to adhere to public consensus.

As for comparing "War crimes" and "genocide", it's a bit different. Genocides, broadly speaking, tend to be very cut and dry. It's very hard to argue whether something is genocide or not when a significant chunk of a population has been wiped out. There are a few that can warrant debate but most of them are pretty obvious in consensus.

War crimes are incredibly technical, sometimes overly semantic with very specific definitions and sub-clauses that require professional war crime lawyers to interpret. See for example the use of White Phosphorus discussion that was made in the Israel thread - it's incredibly semantic and the language and interpretation is very important.

But i'll be more specific with my point: I don't think it's worth having a discussion on any action in WWII meeting modern day war crime definitions because a) half the military operations by everyone would be war crimes and b) the language around things like strategic bombing is incredibly vague and you'd have to dig deep into archival evidence to work out whether or not things like the Stuggart bombings or the Cologne bombings were war crimes or not.
 
The japanese civilians in hiroshima and nagasaki weren't about to die of cold or from insufficient medical treatment. They were getting on with their lives (difficult as they were because of the war) when they were obliterated.

You need to see a difference here, mate. You really need to.
Because there's nothing humane about it.

They were about to be sent as machine gun fodder armed with fecking bamboo sticks had the bombs not dropped. That was the alternative. I know you don't believe this, and don't want to accept this and you can't process truly how fecked up the Japanese War council were, but that is the historical consensus.

To me atleast, killing 150k to save millions of Japanese civilians being sent to their death against trained American Marines who already had huge hatred towards Japanese people for the brutal island hopping campaign, is more humane.

This was quite literally a choice that had to be made.

Can I ask, what would you do? What would be the "humane" option against Japan at this point?
 
I have done so for the past page and I'm tired of having to do so - I use that language as it's the same language that's used in a lot of the books I read on similar contexts. If people have an issue with the use of language, I can accept that and whilst I might not understand, this is a forum and I'm happy to adhere to public consensus.

As for comparing "War crimes" and "genocide", it's a bit different. Genocides, broadly speaking, tend to be very cut and dry. It's very hard to argue whether something is genocide or not when a significant chunk of a population has been wiped out. There are a few that can warrant debate but most of them are pretty obvious in consensus.

War crimes are incredibly technical, sometimes overly semantic with very specific definitions and sub-clauses that require professional war crime lawyers to interpret. See for example the use of White Phosphorus discussion that was made in the Israel thread - it's incredibly semantic and the language and interpretation is very important.

But i'll be more specific with my point: I don't think it's worth having a discussion on any action in WWII meeting modern day war crime definitions because a) half the military operations by everyone would be war crimes and b) the language around things like strategic bombing is incredibly vague and you'd have to dig deep into archival evidence to work out whether or not things like the Stuggart bombings or the Cologne bombings were war crimes or not.

We're not lawyers and we use those expressions all the time for things there are obvious. Some may require further analysis but arguing that an attack on a civilian population that killed about a quarter million people, the vast majority civilians, is not a war crime is really stretching it. You know it was a war crime and you're the one choosing to turn this into semantics or technicalities.
 
They were about to be sent as machine gun fodder armed with fecking bamboo sticks had the bombs not dropped. That was the alternative. I know you don't believe this, and don't want to accept this and you can't process truly how fecked up the Japanese War council were, but that is the historical consensus.

To me atleast, killing 150k to save millions of Japanese civilians being sent to their death against trained American Marines who already had huge hatred towards Japanese people for the brutal island hopping campaign, is more humane.

This was quite literally a choice that had to be made.

Can I ask, what would you do? What would be the "humane" option against Japan at this point?
All the images you've shown of japanese civilians and some of the opinions you posted about how the japanese would react are very similar to some images of nazi civilians, many kids and what was said at the time about the nazis. They were fanatics and would fight to the last man. It didn't happen.

We will never know what would've happened in japan. You seem to be convinced you know, but you don't, no one does. What we know is that the US wiped out around 250k civilians, using the words humane or mercy to describe this is... I dunno, I'm speachless.
 
We're not lawyers and we use those expressions all the time for things there are obvious. Some may require further analysis but arguing that an attack on a civilian population that killed about a quarter million people, the vast majority civilians, is not a war crime is really stretching it. You know it was a war crime and you're the one choosing to turn this into semantics or technicalities.

Actually, it's not cut and dry.

There are many historians and experts with far better credentials than you and I who have made compelling cases for both sides. This is a topic (was the bombs usage a war crime under geneva) that splits the experts in two and there is no historical consensus.

Personally, given that the context of why the bomb was dropped, it probably dips it into War Crime territory. But honestly the only difference between the bombs and strategic bombing in general was the number of munitions used, (1 vs 10000) to do the exact same amount of damage (more in some cases of strategic bombing) which is where it gets into semantics territory because technically bombing a war factory but having 1000 civilians dead as a byproduct is "technically" not against the geneva convention, in some interpretations.

Yeah this is why I said it's pointless to label the bombs as war crime, nobody can answer that question here, this is expertise that goes well beyond any of our capabilities.
 
All the images you've shown of japanese civilians and some of the opinions you posted about how the japanese would react are very similar to some images of nazi civilians, many kids and what was said at the time about the nazis. They were fanatics and would fight to the last man. It didn't happen.

We will never know what would've happened in japan. You seem to be convinced you know, but you don't, no one does. What we know is that the US wiped out around 250k civilians, using the words humane or mercy to describe this is... I dunno, I'm speachless.

But it already happened in Japan - I have posted Okinawa situation about 3 times now and you refused to acknowledge that.

250,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, callously and pointlessly gave away their lives because of the fanatism. There was never a situation comparable in Nazi Germany.

EDIT - I would like to also point out a lot of it wasn't fanatism, they were forced to fight at gunpoint.
 
Actually, it's not cut and dry.

There are many historians and experts with far better credentials than you and I who have made compelling cases for both sides. This is a topic (was the bombs usage a war crime under geneva) that splits the experts in two and there is no historical consensus.

Personally, given that the context of why the bomb was dropped, it probably dips it into War Crime territory. But honestly the only difference between the bombs and strategic bombing in general was the number of munitions used, (1 vs 10000) to do the exact same amount of damage (more in some cases of strategic bombing) which is where it gets into semantics territory because technically bombing a war factory but having 1000 civilians dead as a byproduct is "technically" not against the geneva convention, in some interpretations.

Yeah this is why I said it's pointless to label the bombs as war crime, nobody can answer that question here, this is expertise that goes well beyond any of our capabilities.
Common sense, mate.
 
Common sense, mate.

But War Crimes are not common sense, it is incredibly convoluted, semantic and confusing. This is why there is no consensus historically. This is why historians cannot agree on this topic.

By the way, I want to ask again. If you think the American choice was inhumane, what would your humane option be?
 
But it already happened in Japan - I have posted Okinawa situation about 3 times now and you refused to acknowledge that.

250,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, callously and pointlessly gave away their lives because of the fanatism. There was never a situation comparable in Nazi Germany.
Why do you refuse to address my main point, which is the use of the terms "mercy" and "humane" to describe an event that killed a quarter of a million civilians?
 
All the images you've shown of japanese civilians and some of the opinions you posted about how the japanese would react are very similar to some images of nazi civilians, many kids and what was said at the time about the nazis. They were fanatics and would fight to the last man. It didn't happen.

We will never know what would've happened in japan. You seem to be convinced you know, but you don't, no one does. What we know is that the US wiped out around 250k civilians, using the words humane or mercy to describe this is... I dunno, I'm speachless.

So you think dying in a firebombing in Dresden, Hamburg, Köln, Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich or any of the hundreds other German cities bombed was more humane than dying in Nagasaki or Hiroshima!? The numbers aren't even comparable either.
 
But War Crimes are not common sense, it is incredibly convoluted, semantic and confusing. This is why there is no consensus historically. This is why historians cannot agree on this topic.

By the way, I want to ask again. If you think the American choice was inhumane, what would your humane option be?
Some may not be, this one is, regardless of all the semantics and technicalities in the world.

There was no humane option.
 
Why do you refuse to address my main point, which is the use of the terms "mercy" and "humane" to describe an event that killed a quarter of a million civilians?

Because its the same term that many historians, experts who far outweigh my intellect and capacity to understand these events, use to describe this.
 
So you think dying in a firebombing in Dresden, Hamburg, Köln, Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich or any of the hundreds other German cities bombed was more humane than dying in Nagasaki or Hiroshima!? The numbers aren't even comparable either.
What are you on about? Open a topic about that and I'll go there and say that the bombing of civilian areas is a war crime.
 
Because its the same term that many historians, experts who far outweigh by intellect and capacity to understand these events, use to describe this.
They're not here for me to call them out, are they?

Leave those historians aside, do you think it was humane?
 
Why was it not an option to create a defensive blockade around Japan? No imports, no exports. Actually, you wouldn't even need a blockade. Which country at that point would offer any form of assistance? They had no friends. Just wait them out. I seriously doubt they that the people wouldn't have revolted at some point. But I suspect the leaders would have been broken first.

Also the suicide mission theory doesn't even hold up. If the country was ready to die then why would a few nukes change that? It makes no sense. It's a classic (and particularly ugly) case of orientalism to excuse your abhorrent actions by convincing yourself that you are dealing with a 100% irrational group of people and that it's the only viable option.
 
Some may not be, this one is, regardless of all the semantics and technicalities in the world.

There was no humane option.

So, regardless of what US did, they would be the bad guys?

But you can say some are more humane than others, no?

Like for example, British POW camps are far more "humane" than German or Soviet POW camps, no?
 
So you think dying in a firebombing in Dresden, Hamburg, Köln, Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich or any of the hundreds other German cities bombed was more humane than dying in Nagasaki or Hiroshima!? The numbers aren't even comparable either.

So the only options we nuclear bombs or fire bombing? Isn't it considered now that the firebombing of Dresden was a war crime and didn't actually do anything to help the Allies during the war?
 
Why was it not an option to create a defensive blockade around Japan? No imports, no exports. Actually, you wouldn't even need a blockade. Which country at that point would offer any form of assistance? They had no friends. Just wait them out. I seriously doubt they that the people wouldn't have revolted at some point. But I suspect the leaders would have been broken first.

Also the suicide mission theory doesn't even hold up. If the country was ready to die then why would a few nukes change that? It makes no sense. It's a classic (and particularly ugly) case of orientalism to excuse your abhorrent actions by convincing yourself that you are dealing with a 100% irrational group of people and that it's the only viable option.
It's a strange one. They were ready to die no matter what. Two nukes are dropped. Oh look they surrendered.
 
Why was it not an option to create a defensive blockade around Japan? No imports, no exports. Actually, you wouldn't even need a blockade. Which country at that point would offer any form of assistance? They had no friends. Just wait them out. I seriously doubt they that the people wouldn't have revolted at some point.

Also the suicide mission theory doesn't even hold up. If the country was ready to die then why would a few nukes change that? It makes no sense. It's a classic (and particularly ugly) case of orientalism to excuse your abhorrent actions by convincing yourself that you are dealing with a 100% irrational group of people and that it's the only viable option.

1) The Americans had been doing that for 4 years. COMSUBPAC had reduced shipping to Japan to essentially, 0, by 1944. The country had been starving for a year.

2) Good question. It actually didn't. After both bombs were dropped the War Council still did not agree to surrender, after the Manchuria invasion they still wanted to fight on to the last man. 3/6 wanted to conditionally surrender with absurd terms, the other 3 want to die until the end.

It was the emperor who couldn't take it anymore. He was the one who declared surrender and even then, the Japanese Army tried to coup him to continue the fight.

Ugh, that last bolded part. Have you actually read up on this topic? Read accounts from Japanese sources, memoirs, civilian accounts, American accounts - many civilians weren't irrational. The leadership were demented.
 
So the only options we nuclear bombs or fire bombing? Isn't it considered now that the firebombing of Dresden was a war crime and didn't actually do anything to help the Allies during the war?

I posted about this 2 months ago. I did a lot of personal research into this topic.

No. It was not. I can link you the post if you like.
 
Jesus, some of the pearl clutching in here. History is basically just a bunch of opinions about events and you have to try to find the one that best fits what seem to be the common facts. Quibbling over a common word is bizarre and embarrassing. You might not like someone's opinion about historical events but it doesn't make them a sociopath just because you disagree with their take FFS. Disagree with the narrative or the facts all you like, not trivial words within them.
 
So, regardless of what US did, they would be the bad guys?

But you can say some are more humane than others, no?

Like for example, British POW camps are far more "humane" than German or Soviet POW camps, no?

In the war in general? No, they were not the bad guys, they were on the right side of history on that one. Regarding the nukes? Absolutely the bad guys.

You really like your semantics, mate. I'll try to make it obvious.

A situation where pow's are murdered is inhumane.

A situation where pow's are treated decently is humane.

But...

If two nations murder their pow's, one with a shot in the head and the other by slowly torturing them to death, both are inhumane.
 
What are you on about? Open a topic about that and I'll go there and say that the bombing of civilian areas is a war crime.

I am not the one picking 2 events in history and acting as if they happened in a vacuum with no other comparable events.

So the only options we nuclear bombs or fire bombing? Isn't it considered now that the firebombing of Dresden was a war crime and didn't actually do anything to help the Allies during the war?

Those were the two practical options available to the US in 1945, yes. I know you would not have cared for any US military that would have died on the beaches of Japan, but their families would have cared. Please show me any reputable source that says it is universally accepted that the bombing of German cities in WW2 was a war crime (of course it wasn't, the Germans pretty much pioneered bombing civilians into submission (by air) and everyone accepted that the society that brought that onto Europe didn't deserve to be the one spared).
 
Jesus, some of the pearl clutching in here. History is basically just a bunch of opinions about events and you have to try to find the one that best fits what seem to be the common facts. Quibbling over a common word is bizarre and embarrassing. You might not like someone's opinion about historical events but it doesn't make them a sociopath just because you disagree with their take FFS. Disagree with the narrative or the facts all you like, not trivial words within them.
What if I don't think killing 1/4 million civilians being called mercy is trivial? Is that allowed?
 
And if the leaders didn't break in that scenario and Japanese civilians died of hunger?

There are a lot of ifs and buts before we reach that though. First the leaders must be the most stubborn in the history of man. Then there must be food shortages. And lastly the people (and the army) must be unable to revolt.

There was no option without risk to human life, but I don't think that the nuclear bombs were the best option. Not to mention there was no guarantee of surrender after that second bomb either! In which case you have also committed a brutal war crime.
 
I am not the one picking 2 events in history and acting as if they happened in a vacuum with no other comparable events.
You realize I wasn't the one who started talking about nukes, right? I can only reply to what others post.