You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
If what you're getting at is, "war is hell and ending war is better than continuing it" — I mean, I agree, in principle. The question is always the means.
My point is that the "2 bombs on 2 cities in 3 days versus invasion" framework is inadequate, historically. It's a postwar creation meant to justify the bombings, not a reflection of how it was seen by anyone involved at the time.
You seem to be wanting to get into the moral question (which I've not really ventured into in this thread at all, just poked at), which is something a bit different from that.
But if I were to prod you on the moral question, here's how I'd frame it: Under what conditions is it moral act for a state to deliberately set hundreds of thousands of civilians on fire, by any means, to achieve its military or political aims?
I'm not saying there aren't any. Maybe they're the conditions you've outlined. But it refocuses attention around the specific means. Because in the end, if you are going to imply that the ends always justify the means in such a situation — that's a pretty dark road to go down.
But to your general point, in no way would I want to imply that the war wasn't hell, and especially for the peoples occupied or captured by the Japanese. I don't let them off the hook. I try to not let *anyone* off the hook.
And my point is that the real framework *of the historical moment* was "2 bombs on 2 cities in 3 days while active combat was underway in half the hemisphere." People were still dying by the untold 000s BEFORE an invasion.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
