blah the Prussian

Huh, if you don't mind me asking what college were/are you in?

Oh damn, I can definitely do it by then, thanks.

Well, I drop in for the first time in like a month and find this prompt. So can I ask what the deadline is?

Well, I don't know how to feel about that more than I haven't known how to feel about anything, ever, before. On another note: The stage is set for the Serenes Forest Civil War.

So I guess you could say it will have... an ending to surpass Metal Gear?

Wait, where did you hear that?

Oh no, don't be fine with it, but the way to not be fine with it isn't to not praise those who are civil. If anything the way to change that is to continue praising those who are civil.

From my perspective, at least, the majority sets the standards. Civility is not the bare minimum anymore, and that's just a fact. It is something to be praised in this political climate because of how rare it is. Standards have evolved.

Depends on if it's reasonably possible to target only the enemy combatants and their resources. If it's not, then the laws of war are clear; it's on the enemy to not hide among civilians.

Well, sometimes we have to do things that are morally reprehensible. You were asking if I condoned stuff like Operation Whirlwind, the answer is yes. Thinking about it, I retract that statement. I'd give both normal sentences. It's important that commanders face harsh punishments so that they'd only target civilians when absolutely needed. Because the military as a whole did not set out to deliberately kill Iraqi civilians. Collateral damage can't be a war crime because everyone does it.

Yeah, I guess that's true, but international law is a joke anyway and will never have any effect beyond being a vehicle for victor's justice. If I were a judge in a case where a starving man stole reread I'd let him off with a slap on the wrist. Similarly, I'd let a military commander who targeted civilians when it was absolutely necessary off with a slap on the wrist. I don't think the military as a whole is liable for crimes against humanity. I think individual war crimes(which there indeed were) should be tried individually. It is not a war crime unless intent to kill civilians can be proven. Those certainly happened in Iraq but I don't think the military as a whole can be accused of that.

Which neither Operation Whirlwind nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed to do. However, if you're the Soviet Union, and your defeat to the Nazis will mean the literal enslavement of your people, I'm willing to look past targeting civilians if done when the Soviets were losing. There's a difference between civilians as collateral damage(Operation Whirlwind) and civilians as the deliberate targets(the Blitz).

Actually if you look at the map pretty sure Spain is part of not France. Except Brittany, which is apparently independent. Honestly the Atlantic Federation is super ambiguous in general and one of my big hopes for this game is world building about the countries in West Europa.

About the Empire losing...

Yeah, could have been clearer, they're Gallians but fighting in the Edinburgh army, much like how after Operation Barbarossa the Soviets let Polish POWs fight in the British army, or how much of the Czech airfare joined the RAF and fought in the Battle of Britain.

Yeah, tbh I wish they'd just retconned that like they seem to have retconned a lot about the Federation; it seems here to be less a polity and more an alliance ala NATO, and the new map has a bunch of nee countries. I was surprised that the heroes weren't actually from the France like thing and are actually not!British. (also, history buff in my loves the nods to the exile divisions the British had from countries the Nazis took over, which the main squad here is)

It could be part of the strategy of the Empire. I mean, the game does have heavy Barbarossa/1812 vibes. The Empire could be planning on luring the Alliance in to destroy their army. Anyway VC1 is mostly good because the character of Maximillian is one giant middle finger to edgy protagonists like Lelouch so I can't stay mad at him.

Well, but the way you said it implied that even granted that the use of the bombs had sound military reasoning behind them they wouldn't be justified("bombing people is never justified") which is what I take issue with. In this case, I think that the bombs had sound military reasoning behind them. In other cases, such as, in fact, the use of drones in Iraq, I don't think the military reasoning is enough to justify it. To be clear I have never nor will never support the Iraq War and I think that US troops committed war crimes there. However, that doesn't make it a genocide. Assuming your family members were slated to invade Japan you can bet your ass they would have been. Not to mention, of course, all the Japanese civilians who would have died. Tokyo: not to the extent it was bombed but yes bombing it was legitimate. Berlin and Germany as a whole: I'm never gonna agree with the people going do it again Bomber Harris but the strategic bombing campaign over Germany was militarily justified and the death toll it caused often gets overinflated by Wehraboos and the like to a ridiculous degree. London: The bombing of London wasn't just an atrocity, it was a stupid idea. Before then, the Germans were only bombing military targets. By including civilian targets(and, unlike Operation Whirlwind, they deliberately targeted civilians) the Germans inflicted less damage on the RAF and lost the Battle of Britain. Everything else: no as chemical and biological weapons are banned. However were the situation to be dire enough(which it never was during WWII) I could see the argument.

And I'm sorry, casualties in war will never be a minor genocide and even if it was McCain was not responsible for the policies that killed civilians in Iraq.

Well, I personally believe in multiverse theory if only so I can one day go to a universe where the French Revolution was crushed faster. But yeah, I see what you're saying.

But can't God see the possible outcomes of all our possible choices? For example, God knows what will result from me choosing to stop procrastinating on what I need to do while writing this, and God knows what will happen if I continue to write this post instead of doing what I need to be doing. Shouldn't that clear up the contradiction? Anyway, I think there's way less free will than people think. The vast majority of people are prisoners of their environment or cultures. It takes a truly exceptional individual to really break free of the mould society has set for them.

I mean the way I see it if there's military reasoning behind using them then using them is justified. If using the atomic bombs in that situation wasn't justified nothing could have been justified.

she kinda does dude Sure. The idea that I think you're alluding to is that Japan surrendered mostly because of Operation August Storm, the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. This idea has a grain of truth because it is true that Japan was hoping for Stalin to mediate a peace/form an "anti-imperialist pact". However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria wasn't in and of itself enough to force Japan to peace. Given that even after the bomb there was an attempted coup, and that coup only lost a lot of support after the bomb, so its reasonable to assume that the bombs were needed.

Based on what Truman knew at the time nuking Nagasaki was justified. The Japanese were going to surrender but didn't because of a coup attempt; however, he had no way of knowing this. For all he knew, they were stalling, so it makes sense to drop the bomb as scheduled.

Eh, that argument is badhistory, but I see what you're saying. I think the US was wrong to go into Iraq, partially because of the civilian casualties that resulted, but what I take issue with is the idea that those civilian casualties themselves were a separate issue. War is bad because it results in civilian casualties. The Iraq War was bad because it was based on a lie and caused pointless civilian casualties. Maybe this is just semantics, I don't know.