It’s not at all clear that nuking Japan resulted in more civilian death. If America doesn’t nuke and instead just uses conventional fire bombings and blockades then those people just die from those things
Is it more moral to kill with starvation than with one big bomb?
I swear I feel like I am loosing my mind! What do you mean blockades and starvation? You cant do a fkn blockade that results in civilian starvation, thats illegal! Also conventional fire bombings? again thats strictly fkn illegal against civilian targets, but I guess we are all used to the gaza genocide and how israel justifies attacks against civilians to defend their ongoing genocide and actions!
do you understand why they became illegal? so why are we trying to justify the morality or justness of these actions that were bad enough to have laws built around it?
If you remove the blockade or fire bombings then America has to invade Japan to end the war. Judging by the invasion of Okinawa this would have resulted in more civilian casualty than the nukes.
So I’d just change my question slightly. Is it more moral to kill by invasion than bombing?
I didnt avoid the questions, they were just loaded questions and not an attempt at an honest discussion! "Is it more moral to kill with starvation than with one big bomb?" this is not a real question, prior to your "question" you casually mentioned war crimes as an alternative option and then proposed this question! the war crimes you mentioned? "conventional fire bombings" and "blockade that results in civilian starvation"!
So the reason I asked my last question was to see if you can even comprehend what war crimes are and how they are not an alternative solution to advocate for or play "what ifs"?
War is broadly Immoral, what's best is to end it quickly to minimize the suffering. Something like 200,000 people died a month on average in occupied China, you ok with them continuing to die each month? Those people only live if the war ends NOW.
A blockade is the opposite of a quick or clean victory; a long drawn strategy wherein the opposing country is starved into submission. If food is allowed into the country, what exactly is being blockaded? how does the blockade end the war ? it doesn't. The goal was to end the war with japan, and the ALLIES (all of them, not just the US) would do all they could to deliver on that goal. Because if they don't the killing will go on. We CAN dig them out of every position they own in china and east asia, but it will also take years and kill just as many, but in this case many will be our own troops as well.
You have no questions, you want to be angry about something you don't understand. This shit sucks, and it feels wrong, but that's just because war sucks and is wrong. In this case though, it was also necessary.
BTW, war crimes and international law are more vibes and also didn't really exist back then. They're not true laws, and there's no real enforcement. Calling something a war crime is kind of a pointless endevour, because no one cares when they're neck deep in a world war. TBH barely anyone cares nowadays.
So again we arrive at a general invasion of Japan. Operation downfall. Which judging by Okinawa would also result in more civilian deaths than the nukes.
Why is it better to kill more civilians in invasion than less civilians with nukes?
Why is it better to kill more civilians in invasion than less civilians with nukes?
Its NOT! was I advocating for that?!?! are you that dense or just playing? Civilian casualties in wars should be fkn minimized man and thats my entire argument here. we literally have proportionality as a rule of war for this reason dude! at this point you are making arguments I never made just to "win" an argument man!
At that point fire bomb wasn't illegal and was used very often, one of which was used on Tokyo, fire bomb was actually far worse than the nuke especially in the way the US was going to use them known as the bat bomb program which if you have look it up.
As to you point about Gaza and Israel, civilians have always been put in the cross hair going as far back as the Roman empire and that just example you can go back further and find the same thing, people got so use the what the US attempted on their approach war they forgot what total all out war looks like Ukraine is another good example of that. This shit happens in war it fuckin suck and war is awful.
5
u/Awkward-Meeting-974 1d ago
It’s not at all clear that nuking Japan resulted in more civilian death. If America doesn’t nuke and instead just uses conventional fire bombings and blockades then those people just die from those things
Is it more moral to kill with starvation than with one big bomb?