These are word-probability glorified autocorrectors being prompted to “simulate” a nuclear war scenario. What words are going to show up a lot when discussing nuclear war? Launching nukes. Because that’s what all the literature about it has happen.
Once again, decision making and reasoning is being attributed to something that operates off of word frequency
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I think you mean white-washed, misrepresented, and celebrated.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Same thing with extra steps
KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.
Please show how the nukes are worse.
Zombie@feddit.uk 1 day ago
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41144264/
cambridge.org/…/61689AD5A1AA4A684B84DFA4F9E5D1D3
large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/bennett1/
icrc.org/…/hiroshima-nagasaki-health-consequences…
KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!
5/10
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 day ago
The Japanese government was already willing to surrender.
KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.