Tyber_Zahn posted:Well if you took something like WW2 and scalled up the size of a galaxy, we would have been bombing entire planets populated with civilians into the stone age. The nuclear bomb dropped on Japan would be planet destroying bombs. Not that would have made the Allies any more evil, they're fighting the war the same way just the scale of the war is different.
DarthUr posted:Tyber_Zahn posted:Well if you took something like WW2 and scalled up the size of a galaxy, we would have been bombing entire planets populated with civilians into the stone age. The nuclear bomb dropped on Japan would be planet destroying bombs. Not that would have made the Allies any more evil, they're fighting the war the same way just the scale of the war is different. I don't think Alderaan is comparable to Hiroshima no matter what, but especially in this instance it's still not comparable. Hiroshima was chosen because it was a big enough city to make an impact while still being small enough that the loss of population would not have a permanently crippling effect on Japanese culture. There's a reason they bombed Hiroshima and not, say, Tokyo or Kyoto. Blowing up a Core World is more akin to blowing up a capital city than an outlying city, if you still think you can really compare destroying an entire biosphere to destroying one human settlement. And really, given that planets with the population of Alderaan are treated more like nation-states in the Senate than like cities or provinces, what it's most like is blowing up *all of Japan* in order to break the back of the Axis powers. Would it have been justified for the USA to kill *everyone in Japan* (or Germany, or Italy) in order to stop the war?
DarthUr posted:This.
DarthUr posted:At least their suffering was shorter than the running time of "The Ewoks and the Magic Sunberries".