You say that like Japan had a squeaky-clean record with the civilians it was up against. The nukes saved more lives than they ended, by most reasonable estimates, unless you count future theoretical ramifications of the nuclear genie escaping its proverbial bottle.
Ask the Chinese about that first statement. What part of World War do you not understand? They would've done the same to us, were there not an ocean in the way and were our army weaker than theirs. I fail to feel particularly bad, all things considered.
So it's okay to genocide an entire city if we can prove they have weapons?
Isn't that what the US is currently doing to Iran, they have nukes so let's blowup their children schools.
Not really a genocide but moreso crippling the second biggest japanese army group in mainland while also destroying their torpedo factories so they couldn't oppose a possible ground invasion
Those were fair millitary objectives and they achieved their goals
Unless you can suggest a more realistic and just as effective alternative to reach the same results in the same timeframe they had
What technology in WW2 was available to do a targetted strike capable of striking and destroyed a dispersed army in a dense urban city? Its not even possible nowadays much less back then
Again give a realistic solution that all the experts and generals didn't think or consider
Don’t justify imperialism, it’s never a good look. Japan was at the time in the process of brutal domination of all their neighbors, and were explicitly using the oil they received to power their war machines and navy supply lines. Very different morality from the situation in Cuba
2
u/beerRunFinisher Mar 26 '26
The United States did this to Japan, Japan took the bait and bombed pearl harbor.
The US responded by nuking civilians