Re:Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?
by mikeash on Thursday May 07, 2015 @12:57PM
(#9506508)
Really, "with no reason"? There were plenty of reasons. You can debate whether they were good or bad, or justified what was done, but to just dismiss it all as "no reason" is ridiculous. Even people who think that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was completely reprehensible will still say that there was a reason for it, like putting a fright into the Soviets.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?
by meira on Saturday May 09, 2015 @06:42PM
(#9517966)
So what? ISIS has a reason too.
Re:Why Hasn’t the World Been Destroyed in a Nuclear War Yet?
by mikeash on Saturday May 09, 2015 @08:59PM
(#9518290)
So "no reason" is a phrase which destroys thoughts and makes us be content with not understanding people's motivations. I object to using it when it's so clearly wrong. And yes, I would just as strongly object to someone saying that ISIS beheads and rapes people for "no reason."