[marsa]

imagine Russia using the same justification for dropping one on a Ukrainian city and suddenly all complexity and nuance is gone

it's morally indefensible in all cases

[AnimalMuppet]

Nope. You've proven that it's morally indefensible in at least one case. You've got a lot more proving to do before "all cases" is a valid conclusion.

[marsa]

it's 2/2 real world cases so 'all cases' seems like a legit conclusion to me, but if you can come with an ethical hypothetical a-bomb dropping scenario i'm all ears

[AnimalMuppet]

No it's not. It's 1/1 in your hypothetical case. The two real world cases are considerably less clear cut.

[irrational]

I don’t think that is true. Russia has shown themselves to be a bad actor, like early 1900s Germany and Japan.

[marsa]

shown themselves to you maybe, but have in mind that post 1945 plenty of couped/invaded countries around the world could come up with a convincing case painting US as a bad actor too

this is where you should search for nuance and complexity, whereas dropping a-bombs on civilians is a clear cut case of an immoral act no matter how many lives it supposedly saves