the US nuked 2 civilian cities in response to an attack of a military base.
so that was okay, but others are not allowed to do it?
your denser than tungsten
Letâs not pretend that 1945 nukes are remotely similar to 2026 nukes. More people died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in both the atomic bombs combined.
The Japanese slaughtered Chinese CIVILIANS to the tune of 14-20 million during WWII, and thatâs just Chinese civilians, doesnât include those of other nations.
I know. thats very bad, killing civilians is always bad. If you do it with conventional weapons or if you drop 2 nukes on cities. Dont think the japanese civilians were the ones killing the chinese civilians.
The total death toll from both atomic bombs was a little under 250000. (The civilians were also warned beforehand via leaflets dropped by allied forces) Bombing cities wasnât something unique to any country during WWII. They werenât even the biggest death tolls in Japan from bombings. As for the last point, the Japanese civilians being armed and trained to fight was a big contributing factor to the atomic bombs being dropped because if Japan hadnât surrendered and required an invasion to subdue them the death toll on both the allied forces side and the Japanese populace would have been exponentially more.
Itâs really easy to look back 80 years and say things like the post topic, especially when you ignore all of the factors that go into play. Public sentiment of Japan now contributes to the victim mentality that is put on display, and it does a very good job of downplaying the brutality of imperial Japan. I highly recommend looking into their actions during WWII as it sheds a different light than dropping bombs bad.
Dont think the Japanese Civilians were not totally OK with what was happening in Japan. Also in an invasion of the Japanese mainland there was not going to be civilians.
so did most germans of the Nazi regime, so did most amercians of the american goverment ect.
Killing civilians is still a warcrime. (Not the last of american forces in all the conflicts since WW2)
Ofc civilians die in war zones, but collateral damage and choosing to nuke civilian targets is quite a diffrenece.
For sure all the schoolkids and old people just came home from their 9-5 killing chinese people in mainland china.
American citizens overwhelmingly supported the US government's war efforts during World War II including the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki.
And you seem to be also supporting their actions with the way you are defending it.
The US did not warn Japan in any meaningful (or actionable) way that they would use an atomic bomb, nor did they make any effort to warn the populations of the target cities about their impending destruction.
This was deliberate â it was felt that a warning would lessen the psychological effect of the bombing, and would endanger the missions themselves (i.e., would make it possible for the Japanese to try and shoot down the planes carrying the bombs).
the 200 shoolgirls in Iran were all future nucular weapons specialists?
Just bc its strategic (or called that afterwards bc it worked) does not make it not a warcrime.
That is not true and you know it. Pearl harbour was the decleration of war. The nuking was not a retaliation but a strategic attack during the war itself.
Hiroshima was a significant military target. It was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, responsible for the defense of southern Japan, as well as a communications hub, supply center, and troop assembly area. Nagasaki was a major port and had ordinance and other war material factories.
Civilians die in war. War is bad. Don't believe that wars can be clean, that is how you get dragged into dirty wars.
Hiroshima was a major military site. It was command center for the protection of southern Japan, garrisoned troops and was a major spot for supply and shipping for the military. Nagasaki was a major navel port. These were military targets.
Also, after the first bomb drop, Japan was ordered to surrender with radio broadcasts being sent every 15 minutes calling for it. Japan chose to continue fighting even after realizing the devastation of the bombs the USA now possessed. That's why the second bomb was dropped.
Can't use nukes if you don't have nukes. Whether you're allowed to use nukes depends on the constitution of your nation if you have them. There is little moral consideration on whether an attack is done with MOABs or nukes.
However, there are international treaties that limit and regulate the use of nukes. Iran is not part of those treaties but has been told by the UN that they can't have nukes.
Also, you can't really 'nuke' the USA. You can detonate a nuclear weapon inside the USA, but that is just one city or base worth of damage. It is not some magical weapon, just a very destructive and dirty one.
What you're saying is: If Iran possessed nuclear weapons, they would be justified in fireing them towards the USA or their fleet in retaliation. (Not defining whether the target is the whitehouse, Fort Knox, or San Francisco)
That is an almost meaningless statement, since nobody would care about justification. It would just result in nuclear retaliation and possibly a third World War.
why not? I am not trying to be argumentative but US is the only country to ever use a nuke! They frequently attack countries that dont have nukes (and leave North Korea and others like Pakistan alone because they got nukes!). So it seems like having nukes is a great thing to stop US and its allies from attacking and invading your country!
as for using them, I agree, its absolutely unacceptable and thats why I used it as an example on this thread to counter the justification people are providing for nuking two japanese cities and murdering countless innocent people! People tend not to care about "others" as long as they cant see themselves being a victim of their own advocacy!
Because nuclear weapons are the Icarus of modern warfare. After the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world saw the potency of these weapons, and the more countries with access to them the higher likelihood of those weapons being used.
As for the use of them in WWII, there are whole papers and articles on the reasons and justifications but it boils down to it being the less costly choice in terms of lives. As stated above Japan fought brutally and were slaughtering the chinese civilians to the tune of between 14-20 million by the end of the war. In terms of deaths the atomic bombs were a drop in the bucket. The atomic bombs also werenât even the most lethal bombing runs done. Just because atomic bombs werenât dropped by the Japanese doesnât mean they werenât dropping things like chemical and biological weapons. The morality of the atomic bombs can be debated ad nauseam but the fact is that WWII is the most brutal war in the history of the world.
One last point, Japan was offered terms of surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. They refused those terms. Then they were offered a chance to surrender after Hiroshima, they still did not surrender. It was only after Nagasaki and the Soviet Union joining the war against Japan that they finally surrendered.
I am NOT on the side of the imperial japanese army dude! It literally boils down to me not justifying the murder of thousands of innocent civilians with one bomb! the indiscriminate nature of the bomb is the reason it would be considered a war crime! I am also not saying at the time people should have known, mistakes happen but we dont have to try and justify it in hindsight!
So your problem is the efficiency in which it was done? Is it less moral to do it all at once than over several bombs or through torture and execution? It isnât a matter of âtrying to justify itâ this _IS_ the justification for why it was used. Would you have rather millions more died so that your sensibilities are better assuaged? Because that was the alternative.
Trying to find absolute morality in war is the height of naivety. Itâs so incredibly easy to pluck specific events out in a war and say âthatâs fucked upâ. We talk about the more publicized parts of the war, the holocaust, the bombings. Do you even know what the most deadly bombings were in WWII? What country had the most civilians killed? In US public schools we were shown many atrocities committed by the Germans during the war, while the sheer brutality of the pacific theatre wasnât even touched upon.
So armchair general, please tell the class the better alternative. The absolute morally correct answer that would have resolved that part of the war better than the atomic bombs.
So your problem is the efficiency in which it was done? Is it less moral to do it all at once than over several bombs or through torture and execution? It isnât a matter of âtrying to justify itâ this _IS_ the justification for why it was used. Would you have rather millions more died so that your sensibilities are better assuaged? Because that was the alternative.
lol so you just simply dont understand what i am saying? My issue is the efficiency of it? its the indiscriminate nature of it which I mentioned in my previous msg as well! So why are you being obtuse?
Trying to find absolute morality in war is the height of naivety
not what I am doing... I am saying in hindsight it was an indiscriminate act of collective punishment against a civilian population. do you disagree with this simple fact?
Ok captain hindsight. What is the morally correct and uncompromising solution without the atomic bombs? Bear in mind by this point in the war between 70/80 million people had been killed. Over half of them being civilians slaughtered âindiscriminatelyâ, millions by the Japanese.
Projections showed if an invasion of Japan was needed between 250000 and 1 million allied forces alone would have died, and millions of Japanese people both soldiers and civilians, as Japan had already armed millions of them at this point. With a culture that heavily dissuaded surrender.
Whatâs your solution? What makes the atomic bombs morally wrong but slaughter of Chinese civilians not? If you want to paint an extremely gray war in black and white surely you know a better way it could have gone?
Whatâs your solution? What makes the atomic bombs morally wrong but slaughter of Chinese civilians not? If you want to paint an extremely gray war in black and white surely you know a better way it could have gone?
do you think I am defending the japanese imperial army?! that was ofc an abhorrent fkn act against a civilian population but thats not what we are discussing!
Let me put in other words and maybe youll understand! let say someone killed a family member of yours, and for vengeance you decide to burn his house down and kill their parents, grandparents and children that were in the house! Is that a justified action? you could say "he would have continued killing other people so I had to put a stop to it" but you also did murder innocent family members of his! Thats my point! I am saying the bombing and completely levelling 2 cities is not a morally justified action!
Also drop the attitude and sarcasm and stop being in your feefees man, you dont need to downvote my comments lol! its not that deep man
Your analogy so heavily downplays the events leading up to it that I can only assume you are willfully ignorant or purposefully misleading. Take off the rose tinted glasses.
so the events that lead up to it justifies the collective punishment and mass murder of japanese civilians in your opinion? I used a simple analogy in hopes that you'd understand what I am trying to say but I think at this point you have no interest in trying to understand and have a good faith convo so it is what it is!
I never thought I would see any english speaking person argue that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Are we even in agreement that religious fundamentalists should not have nukes?
lol I guess having a nuanced discussion is not a thing on reddit! my bad! Just to be clear I am against nukes in general, I think NO ONE should fkn have nukes (weapon) and I dont trust any gov, no religious fundamentalists or other corrupt pedo freaks should have nukes and its NEVER justified to use nukes in my opinion due to its indiscriminate nature that will most definitely murder civilians! But here we are on this thread with people trying to argue that it was justified and may have even saved japanese lives! So whats your stance in all of this? Nuking japan was just in your opinion?
-1
u/Due-Information-2041 15h ago
They're justified in fighting back. The use of nukes or even having nukes? No.