Raw LLM Responses

In the movie Broken Arrow, they mention something I've read several places. "If this thing goes off, this entire area is going to be a radioactive wasteland for 25,000 years" And yet Hiroshima and Nagasaki have both been rebuilt. One place I read that the fact that those two A-bombs were "air burst" instead of exploding at ground level mitigated the dispersal of radiated soil. I'm sure the next following generation of occupants had a higher level of cancers from residual radiation, but even just ten years after WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving. Philosophically speaking, the neutron bomb kills all life in the blast area but leaves the bridges, roads, and buildings intact. Some people feel that the lack of collateral damage makes it somehow worse, because the decision to use a top-tier bomb should be horrific. An A.I. model cannot examine all the evidence without concluding that neutron bombs would end the conflict rapidly with the least loss of life. Take Eastern Ukraine for example. Third party data collection indicates that Russia has lost a minimum of 1.2M soldiers over the past four years. By comparison, in Vietnam, the US lost 56,000. If Ukrainian soldiers pulled back and they dropped neutron bombs all along the border, every Russian soldier in Ukraine would die, and the war would stop. It's a classic trolley problem. I'm not talking about philosophy or ethics, but A.I. thinks like a sociopath. The Russian command seem fixated on getting Pokrovsk. It's where new Russian soldiers go to die. How about NATO giving Ukraine a couple of MOAB's? since they are not nuclear or neutron. Pokrovsk is already a wasteland, so why not?