WHO was also preparing for Covid turning people into zombies. It's their job to prepare for anything that has an above 0.5% chance of happening.

Other than that, of course, WWII was perfectly civilized

The unfortunate thing is how keen the US and its allies appear to recreate it.

Last time I checked, only the US and Israel. Europeans don't want anything to do with this war, and the USA's East Asian allies also like it not even a little bit.

As a Brit, I'm disgusted that Starmer is allowing UK bases to be used by the US for launching attacks. I can see it being just a matter of time before Starmer drags us into another war of lies. (Last time it was Tony Blair, also a Labour leader and he still hasn't been tried for his war crimes).

A UK base was attacked. Would you rather Starmer be the next Chamberlain?

Interestingly, this is denied by the Iranians.

Regardless, Trump and Bibi started this war unilaterally. It's not gone as planned and now they want our support.

The only appeasement I've seen the UK do (repeatedly) in my lifetime is in kowtowing to the US and Israel.

That attack looks like a false flag operation to me. Also, as already stated, Iran is not the aggressor - that would be Trump with his Fifa Peace Prize.

Fallacious comparison, two entirely different situations. For a start, whatever the Iranian response, the aggressor at the root of this particular episode is the other side: the U.S.

Yes, I'm sure Iran is completely honest and knows what it's doing at all times. It's not like there's no central command and someone surely knows what everyone else, including proxies are doing, right?

Moscow would be encircled right now if that was true.

They weren't exclusively civilian targets, they were considered "mixed" targets. Hirohito's home wasn't considered strategically-important enough and therefore didn't make the cut.

The sites in question were also specifically selected because they hadn't previously faced conventional attack, enabling a more accurate damage assessment.

> they hadn't previously faced conventional attack

Which, by the way, illustrates a related point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki had stiff competition. WWII was devastating, to cities and civilians all over the map. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I think the atomic bombs represented some 2 weeks worth of casualties in a war that lasted 300.

No sir that's not a school we're proposing to bomb, it's a complex containing both a school and a vehicle maintenance facility. So it's mixed, meaning there's valid logistical reasons to attack it. Yes, hundreds of children will perish in the attack, but the action will also provide us with legitimate benefits. Just try not to think about the former and focus on the latter. I'm sure no one in the future will judge us too harshly for the decision.

So an automatic cheat code to win any and all conflicts is simply to put strategic assets in schools?

You'd be surprised how many people's "morality" boils down to that.

Is that what the Japanese were doing? (Bit of a pointless diversion though because this is a nuclear bomb we're talking about here. Not exactly a surgical strike.)

Yes and no. They were doing that, but AFAIK they did so because it was deemed more efficient, not to use people as human shields. Also, at the time, there was no such thing as a surgical strike.