The death toll of other people isn't relevant to them. What's important to Elon is that if Elon wanted he could go to either city and have a wonderful time, and therefore no harm, no foul. All that matters to Elon is what Elon thinks and feels, there is no larger world beyond what he directly interacts with.
Elon repeatedly said he's fine with sacrifices made for the sake of progress. It's just that he thinks others should be doing sacrifices and he should be the guy doing progress. Very convenient for a narcissistic manbaby.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”
The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”
To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”
To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”
To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”
This post appears to show that they're arguing that nuclear bombs "aren't that bad", as it's missing the important context that they're actually talking about the safety of nuclear power — or, rather, they're arguing that nuclear power isn't as dangerous as people might think — by using the lingering radiation from the nuclear bombings as an example.
I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that their argument is sound, but this post is bordering on disinformation.
I live thousand miles and almost 40 years away from the Chernobyl disaster. And still we have to test and dispose boar meat regularly because of over the top Caesium-137 polution.
And if that's the case, one should explain why that is rather than trying to twist the truth to fit a narrative.
there was not much radiation because most of it was scattered EVERYWHERE. and the radioactive material was very shortlived. Chernobyl is still very hot, especially in the immediate surrounding areas and nothing like after being nuked as the radioactive material left behind is very long lived
Perhaps he meant that it's not as bad as some people think that nuclear bombs make areas uninhabitable for 1000 of years. I think a lot of people probably think that. Disregarding injuries and death
If that's what he meant he should have phrased it that way. Otherwise, even if we assume what you wrote is true, he sounds like a person insensitive to mass murder.
It's also ignoring 80 years of advancement from literally the first nuclear bombs...
A modern one would make an area uninhabitable for centuries and spread radiation around the majority of the planet. And the destructive force of the blast would flatten like 10x the area.