Holy shit I almost took you seriosly. Then I read the part about how “them” created AIDS lmfaoooo

And I thought I was a good shitposter. Whew. I am thoroughly outclassed.

People villify nuclear weapons to ludicrous proportions, and that was kind of my whole point. Would you, as a thinking and feeling person, if given the choice, choose to be instantly annihilated by a nuclear bomb or live to be poisoned over decades? I’d choose to meet the sun, personally, but I’m always astounded how many people think the poison is somehow the lesser of these evils.

Now tell that to your high-school English teacher when they assign you a research project.

It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.

My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.

Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?

Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!

5/10

Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.

Please show how the nukes are worse.

*these officers need to be set on fire in public, preferably in full view of any of their loved ones.

FTFY