• SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn’t read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it’s effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued… and that’s your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Done with you. Misrepresenting my argument and moving the goal posts. You have given up defending your point, that the nukes were necessary and instead are trying portray my argument, that the nukes were unnecessary, as one advocating for continued strategic bombardment.

          You wanna read more about strategic bombing in general and it’s own inadequacies then go ahead. But that’s not what this conversation is. Go get a history degree if you want to dive into the nuances, otherwise continued arguments with you are pointless.

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time.