DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I mean… I live in the US so I don’t wanna die lol. I hope civilians don’t get targeted bexause some dipshit dictator seized control…
But at the same time… as an ethnic Chinese… looking back in history… dropping nukes on Japan did quickly stopped their invasion of my homeland…
so…
like…
To be clear: I’m not condone the killing of innocent civillians…
But I can see both sides of the argument
The question is tho, is:
- Is the actions of the current US government is equivalent or worse than the damage the Imperial Japan has done in WW2?
- Does nuking the US actually stop it or just make it worse?
Key difference: Imperial Japan did not have nukes or counter-nuke capabilities. They also did not have a population resisting the regime. In contrast, the US is nuclear-capable and the leadership will probably retaliate. So you wont be bringing any peace. Also half of the country doesn’t even support the leadership. So it’s very hard to see such hypothetical strike as the same as nuking Imperial Japan, and that in it of itself was already controversial enough.
TLDR: In modern times, it’s idiotic to start a nuclear war against a country that’s also nuclear-armed.
ztpq@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
There is quite a bit of evidence that the notion it was necessary for a Japanese surrender to nuke them was a fabrication. Two population centers, no less.
Also it was supposed to be Tokyo at first, but some general had been there on vacation and liked it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go