Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
One a different note, I hope you write some time soon …
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)
Yes, the context becomes evident further into the quote, but to negate that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced nuclear warfare even if of the sub-megaton variety, is offensive. I am sure you have spoken with survivors; wouldn't you expect them to wince when reading that?
One a different note, I hope you write some time soon on how the powers that be are "adjusting" their thinking in light of the revival of catastrophic climate disruption studies since 2000. My own thinking on this is reflected in a recent Liberation Day Countdown blog: https://aaron-tovish.medium.com/liberation-day-minus-7700-log-10-the-fatal-flaw-in-nuclear-deterrence-269eac47ef9b .
They are welcome to wince! I am not offering up the DOD's book as anything other than what it is — a bizarre, if interesting, artifact. I will say that I think there are far more bizarre and offensive things in this particular document, which I will write about at further length! :-)