Was the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima morally correct? -
- Thread starter Cabelaz
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
Just Another Apocalypse
kiwifarms.net
before the bombs the nips were happy to believe they were decended from God. If it takes a couple of atom bombs to disabuse you of that kind of fuckwittery... So be it.
Anyway, they built back better didn't they?
- Highlight
- #4
No because Japan's retaliation was worse than the bombs. They inventing anime and now people in west have mutated from chads into horrible beasts.
Yes, hirohito and his goverment minions would of pulled a russia and threw bodies of civvies to fight off US troops had we set foot on Japan soil. It's a tough spot but a "kill enough to save the many"
War is never morally "right." Japan then was ready to colonize Asia and take hand in the Western world. Something had to be done.
I don't agree with the practice, BUT WWII crossed the line long before Berlin. Somebody had to end it.
I don't agree with the practice, BUT WWII crossed the line long before Berlin. Somebody had to end it.
As I have mentioned before, even when you strip away all the fun things Japan did in its occupied territories against civilians and also against prisoners of war, not to mention the bigger picture unprovoked military aggression against neighbouring states for no reason beyond conquest and expansion they had been waging for about 15 years by that point, the facts on the ground were as follows.
a) Japan was throwing everything into making any conventional military action to take them out as bloody and costly as humanly possible both to the allies and to their own people
b) Japan's "wishes for conditional surrender" so touted by their apologists unironically involved them keeping all the land and territories they violently conquered, them facing no punishment or consequence for their actions beyond promising to demilitarise and no war criminals receiving any trial, and the allies pulling out of asia entirely.
c) Japan had by that point already repeatedly used WMDs against its enemies in the form of biological weapons targeted at civilians with a death toll that exceeded what would come with the nukes, and were actively planning and preparing to target the US mainland with the same weapons either via their balloon delivery systems or via their new XXXL submarines that could carry small bombers and payloads
While point c) was unknown to the allies at the time, the fact of the matter was that from a big picture view in which all the nasty little details are obscured....yeah it was the right call. Morally and strategically and pragmatically and from any utilitarian total-suffering equation standpoint.
When you actually zoom in on the aforementioned nasty little details one wishes a couple more nukes had been thrown around just to even the score a little.
a) Japan was throwing everything into making any conventional military action to take them out as bloody and costly as humanly possible both to the allies and to their own people
b) Japan's "wishes for conditional surrender" so touted by their apologists unironically involved them keeping all the land and territories they violently conquered, them facing no punishment or consequence for their actions beyond promising to demilitarise and no war criminals receiving any trial, and the allies pulling out of asia entirely.
c) Japan had by that point already repeatedly used WMDs against its enemies in the form of biological weapons targeted at civilians with a death toll that exceeded what would come with the nukes, and were actively planning and preparing to target the US mainland with the same weapons either via their balloon delivery systems or via their new XXXL submarines that could carry small bombers and payloads
While point c) was unknown to the allies at the time, the fact of the matter was that from a big picture view in which all the nasty little details are obscured....yeah it was the right call. Morally and strategically and pragmatically and from any utilitarian total-suffering equation standpoint.
When you actually zoom in on the aforementioned nasty little details one wishes a couple more nukes had been thrown around just to even the score a little.
It was more about just stopping Japan. We haven’t had a dead ass world war since then and I think that’s why tbh. Nobody wants to deploy it and nobody wants to endure it, so people are really ready to walk a straight and narrow, these 3rd world shit will only go so far now and they go oh so very carefully. It doesn’t matter if we lose battle after battle, they know we’ll win the war. And that’s kept a lot of atrocities within their own borders, as opposed to spreading the genocide worldwide. That was (one of, and probably the first) fuck up if Hitler. He spread that nastiness so far. Had it kept to Germany it’s still probably be going.
I dunno if it was right or moral, but a whole lot of lines are being towed now.
I dunno if it was right or moral, but a whole lot of lines are being towed now.
No because it kickstarted anime.
Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR until America convinced them to break it.
Oh, at the time the US thought the USSR helping out would be good. I'm saying that, retroactively, we saved Japan from a mass rape that would put US soldiers on military bases in Japan to shame.Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR until America convinced them to break it.
- Highlight
- #14
No. There were options other than forcing them to surrender unconditionally, which we knew they would never do, or nuking them. We did not have to murder 200K+ civilians, we did it because we did not see them as human beings, we wanted revenge (for a war we got ourselves into before Pearl Harbor), and it was a convenient way to test the atomic bomb on population centers. Japan was no longer a threat to anyone by that point.
Patriarchy
kiwifarms.net
every action performed by the allied powers was incorrect
VIPPER?
kiwifarms.net
The war was pretty well already over and even if you're a kneejerk tojo hater physically demolishing so much of the country and its inhabitants is what made them bounce back after the war and blow out western manufacturing (turns out when everything in your cunt is destroyed, you have to buy new machinery and have opportunity to invest in new techniques/industries while other countries are still using 90 year old machine tools and bubba practices that "just werk")
I'm still mystified about a christian country genociding almost all (90%?) of christians in Japan with a nuke by dropping it dead center on a christian cathedral.
--
I think it's pretty savage to nuke population centers of an already defeated country in an attempt to scare off another country. It's one of those things that makes it hard to cheer for the allies.
With that said, I may have made the same decision. But then I also think about Japan that way in regards to starting that war.
--
I think it's pretty savage to nuke population centers of an already defeated country in an attempt to scare off another country. It's one of those things that makes it hard to cheer for the allies.
With that said, I may have made the same decision. But then I also think about Japan that way in regards to starting that war.
Last edited:
It hardly mattered one way or the other. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than the individual nukes in japan (not including people who died years later from long term side effects). It didn't matter if a city was destroyed in 1 night by a thousand bombs or 1 minute with a single bomb, the outcome was practically identical. It was the fear of the Soviet invasion which made them surrender (which happened to begin the same day as the first blast).
But it was still useful to set the stakes for the cold war. If a nuke wasn't tested on a major city, then it would be harder to imagine the damage done to people. Kinda like how WW2 leaders who served in WW1, would refuse to use poison gas bombs later on. Because the bombs were tested on Japan everyone knew what the stakes were.
But it was still useful to set the stakes for the cold war. If a nuke wasn't tested on a major city, then it would be harder to imagine the damage done to people. Kinda like how WW2 leaders who served in WW1, would refuse to use poison gas bombs later on. Because the bombs were tested on Japan everyone knew what the stakes were.
wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
I'll take 100 for questions that should only be answered by "yes".
Similar threads
Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Libertarianism
