Nuclear shadow, NagasakiTinKicker t1_j96ovj5 wrote
Reply to comment by RemRose in Nuclear shadow, Nagasaki by allez05
The answer to the killing of millions of people? No.
The way to stop the continued killing of millions of people? History would indicate, yes.
RemRose t1_j96pva2 wrote
Oh yes history would in fact indicate that because if you try to remove a entire island out of existence then absolutely yes they stop their shit. However if i want my baby mother to stop being controlling about my child i should just kill her, if i want my dog to behave i should just beat it to a inch of its life so it cant misbehave anymore if i want the bullying in school to stop i should just shoot it up. The point is yes it worked. Was that necessary and should we just have the thought process of well they killed people too so its cool. No. All of this aside am I suffering from guilt and losing sleep over this no absolutely not but to defend the slaughtering of a race cuz they did bad stuff too is really not how your brain should work.
tkrr t1_j975j0x wrote
You do not understand the assignment. Nor do you seem to understand war or authoritarianism.
The point was not to eradicate the Japanese people. That was the kind of shit the Axis powers were doing. Allied forces had endured a bloodbath in Okinawa and had every reason to believe it would be much, much worse in the Japanese home islands. Make whatever argument you wish in hindsight, but remember that the Allies didn’t have that information (the Cold War, whatever was going on in the Japanese commanders’ or Stalin’s head, any of it) in front of them. Diplomacy wasn’t going to work, as the Japanese kept trying to negotiate conditional surrender even though they had no leverage.
The Allies wanted the war over and the ones responsible punished. That was it. That was their motive. Given that Churchill and Stalin in particular didn’t like or trust each other, Operation Unthinkable had the potential to become a reality the longer the war continued. The bombs were the least bad option on the table.
RemRose t1_j980bnw wrote
Also i suppose one more thing as someone who has grown up in a military family but not served in any war myself i would absolutely say no i do not understand war, not from a personal level, however i do understand that the slaughtering of millions of innocents even if thats “ what needs” to be done is not something that people should have the mind set of “well serves them right”
tkrr t1_j9b0hxw wrote
Ok Edith
Honestly, the fact that you even mentioned sanctions upthread shows you’re either being obtuse or actively misrepresenting the facts. The time for sanctions ended December 6, 1941. The blood of the Japanese people that died was on the hands of the Japanese government from that point on.
The hidden assumptions I mentioned above that I see include 1) that the US was the aggressor in the Pacific war (no one except the historically ignorant seriously believes this) and 2) that entirely destroying the Japanese people was a desired outcome (it wasn’t, at least not to anyone with actual command authority). I don’t know if that’s ignorance or malice on your part, but either way, that makes you a de facto Axis apologist, which is totally indefensible.
RemRose t1_j97zcca wrote
That’s historically wrong but i did enjoy that reading. The scientists that developed the bombs had even advised to not use them to our government who was very adamant to just using them regardless because they felt it would end things. (Which it did) That being said the argument of well we had to cuz the fear of the unknown is also easily passed on simply because if we look slightly into the future we had this thing with russia you know the cold war where both parties could nuke each other anytime and our thought was well if thats gonna happen we have to do it first. Yet that didnt happen even with spys and intel neither party knew every single plan at all times so with that argument of “well we just didnt know what might happen so we bombed them” doesnt hold up cuz then we shoulda just did the same cuz well we dont know. Invasion keeps being brought up like thats even valid. If i can kill millions of “bad guys” and lose nobody on my side why would i send my people to die when thats my option. Regardless we bombed the shit out of people that had nothing to do with the war and no matter how you spin that its not good. War is not good, necessary at times but not good.
tkrr t1_j986om2 wrote
There are some fascinating assumptions hidden in your statement, but I can’t be bothered to unpack them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments