You gotta admit, it’s very suspicious to be massively downvoted (25, not 4) over an inconspicuous comment that merely highlights a few paragraphs of the linked article.

I know I would also be wondering if there was a pattern in the origin of those downvotes.

the nuclear strikes on Japan killed less than the conventional firebombing runs leading up to it, and if nukes wouldn’t have been used a shit ton more people would have died.

That’s an absolutely disgusting thing to say. Japan was already surrendering, they were only nuked as a show of strength.

I’m not sure what you imply when you say that “a shit ton more people would have died”, but if you’re saying that the US should have napalm bombed an entire surrendering country just to make an example, I don’t think it makes your argument valid. It’s not ok to do something horrible, just because you could have done something even worse if you had wanted to.

If anyone would like more context about the kind of think they were posting:

"If detonated, they would not damage the reactors but would create an image of shelling from the Ukrainian side,” the statement on Telegram said.

Not gonna lie, that’s pretty smart. Now if Ukraine decides to start shelling the plant, they can just pretend that it’s actually Russia that detonated some charges.

I think that’s a pattern we’ll start seeing more and more.

They block a shit ton of instances, not always for good reasons. Often to maintain an echo chamber.