6 ms·
There's only one country who has actually used nuclear weapons on humans.
by soperj 5y ago
There's only one country who has actually used nuclear weapons on humans.
- adamc 5y agoYeah. The country that ended a long and terrible war. Fake moral high ground is aggravating.
- Ansil849 5y agoKilling hundreds of thousands of people is also aggravating.
- ipaddr 5y agoTo save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.
- soperj 5y agoit's such a silly argument. Why didn't you drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan then to save lives?
- boomboomsubban 5y agoAnd further, why wouldn't they want Iran to have the ability to drop a nuke and "save millions of lives" if they ever ended up in a similar situation?
- Ansil849 5y agoThe fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history. If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
- Santosh83 5y agoIndeed it is amazing how US citizens feel compelled to religiously believe this oft-repeated pretext. I guess it helps them sleep better at night. The more likely reasons were to "field test" the bombs and to act as a warning shot for the Russians. Japan's belligerent actions and fatigue of war provided the perfect opportunity. It is far more complicated and risky to repeat something like that now.
- sitkack 5y agoThis is such a poetic read The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 > "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
- atmartins 5y agoNot agreeing or disagreeing but this is a poor argument. First, it's not like wars of the size and intensity of WW2 happen often, so a lack of similar action since then isn't surprising. Second, the lack of use may be partially explained by threat of repercussions. Are you not aware of standoffs like the cold war? Third, agreements between nuclear powers to not launch under almost any circumstance.
- mcguire 5y ago"...the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history." I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
- Ansil849 5y ago> I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
- cycomanic 5y agoMost historians disagree with you. There is significant historical evidence that Japans ruling class was close to surrender (IIRC they actually had offered to surrender already, but not unconditionally). In particular the second bomb on Nagasaki was probably more about a sign to other nations (the USSR) than ending the war.
- ipaddr 5y agoThe people making the decisions at the time did. "Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
- cycomanic 5y agoHonest question, assuming he was aware of the full picture, do you believe Truman would have come out and said "we really just dropped the bombs to send a message to the Soviets"? Here is one source which details some of the questions being raised https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir... However I was probably wrong in saying most historians disagree, it seems there is still significant debate https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-justified-us-debate-bombs-death-toll-japan-how-many-died-nuclear/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-...
- ipaddr 5y agoTruman was a spokesmen who would say anything. The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time. An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.
- kikokikokiko 5y agoWould it been better to keep firebombing the hell out of every japanese city then? Have you seen "Grave of the Fireflies?" Don't you think that the people of the 40's had a conscience too, only us the awaken 2021 homo sapiens have it?
- soperj 5y agoThey obviously did have a conscience. That was why it was deemed a war crime in the Hague Conventions to fire bomb cities, it was then re-iterated in much more explicit terms in the Geneva Conventions.
- gmm1990 5y agoRelatively short war, especially compared to some of the more recent occupations. Obviously a terrible war but arguably no less so because the US dropped an extra bomb on Nagasaki.
- adamc 5y agoThe war we ended was WWII.
- WillDaSilva 5y agoShaun provides a nuanced overview of the topic here: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
- hulitu 5y agoAnd then engaged in another one immediattely after.