"But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too."
I've heard the Hiroshima excuse at least a dozen times from Israeli apologists.
But something that both Israeli apologists and left-wing commentators always neglect to mention…
"But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too."
I've heard the Hiroshima excuse at least a dozen times from Israeli apologists.
But something that both Israeli apologists and left-wing commentators always neglect to mention is that a Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuke bombing is COMPLETELTY ILLEGAL under international law since 1948.
After the Nuremberg & Tokyo trials, the Geneva Conventions were updated to make these bombings that disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the valid military objection.
So those who raise the Hiroshima "argument" are by extension saying, fuck international law.
As an interesting side-note, that also really means that every country that has nuclear weapons is essentially reserving the right to commit war crimes if faced with an existential threat. I mean, the unpredictable nuclear fallout alone makes any use of a nuclear weapon in real life circumstances, a war crime.
There are some people actually saying that nuking Gaza (not just by analogy) would end this crisis. To which I saw: Don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows--undoubtedly from the sea to the river.
There are clearly a lot of people too young to remember fall out.
"But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too."
I've heard the Hiroshima excuse at least a dozen times from Israeli apologists.
But something that both Israeli apologists and left-wing commentators always neglect to mention is that a Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuke bombing is COMPLETELTY ILLEGAL under international law since 1948.
After the Nuremberg & Tokyo trials, the Geneva Conventions were updated to make these bombings that disproportionately kill civilians vis-a-vis the valid military objection.
So those who raise the Hiroshima "argument" are by extension saying, fuck international law.
As an interesting side-note, that also really means that every country that has nuclear weapons is essentially reserving the right to commit war crimes if faced with an existential threat. I mean, the unpredictable nuclear fallout alone makes any use of a nuclear weapon in real life circumstances, a war crime.
There are some people actually saying that nuking Gaza (not just by analogy) would end this crisis. To which I saw: Don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows--undoubtedly from the sea to the river.
There are clearly a lot of people too young to remember fall out.