this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
222 points (96.6% liked)
news
804 readers
1492 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
Not now, not during the cold war.
The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn't have?
Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
It's like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren't designed to kill people because that wasn't Nobel's intent.
You made clear you don't endorse their use, not denying that.
While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
That is all.
Bye serious person
That a lot of words just to say, "Sorry, that I mischaracterized your comments".
let it go dude