3 ms·

In the second world war the japanese acted unequivocally as absolute monsters. It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they we

In the second world war the japanese acted unequivocally as absolute monsters. It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they were nuked twice. If anything, it should have happened far earlier.

ahtihn 4y ago
> It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they were nuked twice Yeah, the civilians and especially the children should've overthrown the government. They were totally asking to get nuked. Using nukes may have been the least-bad long term option. That doesn't change that it was an atrocity.
- krageon 4y ago
  To be an atrocity, it has to be extremely ethically wrong for some reason. I do not think it was, so I do not agree it was an atrocity. If it is the least-bad long term option, that makes it in context the ethical choice. Hence, not an atrocity.
  - ahtihn 4y ago
    > If it is the least-bad long term option The thing is you have no way to know that in advance. And people may disagree what "least-bad" even means, it's extremely subjective. I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice.
    - krageon 4y ago
      > I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice. This is more or less the trolley problem, so as you say it is entirely subjective. We're just going to have to agree to disagree :)
srazzaque 4y ago
> acted unequivocally as absolute monsters I'll never forget the day a friend told me: "the Japanese were absolutely ruthless. I mean, these guys made the _nazis_ say 'what the hell is wrong with the Japanese?'" Which led me to read about this man: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
eastbound 4y ago
In an alternate ending, Japan would not have surrendered, and, like in Berlin, fought till the end. Every large city would have been bombed, one after another. Only the military would have been far enough from cities to live.
rich_sasha 4y ago
I'd phrase it differently, but I think it's basically what happened. Japanese atrocities against civilians in China and Korea were enormous. Japanese treatment of US PoWs was horrendous. Japanese troops continued to fight literally to the last man, just to try and kill as many Americans as they could. I think when fighting an all-out war against an opponent like this, it's hard to self-limit. Further, the Japanese approach of never surrendering produced some gargantuan casualties. The Battle of Iwo Jima [1] was apparently the turning point in American thinking. After breaking the back of Japanese Imperial Fleet, Americans figured they need to start taking territory, which meant mostly invading islands. Iwo Jima had notable, but not extreme importance. And again, the Japanese would just not surrender. Quoting Wikipedia, of the 21,000 Japanese troops, only 216 were taken prisoner, and these were mostly unconscious or disabled soldiers who could physically not fight. The rest fought tooth, nail and bayonet against each and every American, and died eventually. Add 6k American soldiers who died in that one battle, and suddenly dropping an extra nuke on a city of 100,000 looks, weirdly, like a life-saving manoeuvre. And Iwo Jima wasn't even that important, or particularly close to Japan proper, you could expect casualties to only get significantly worse. This doesn't even count the wounded, which in a military context doesn't usually mean a bloody nose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

ahtihn 4y ago

> It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they were nuked twice Yeah, the civilians and especially the children should've overthrown the government. They were totally asking to get nuked. Using nukes may have been the least-bad long term option. That doesn't change that it was an atrocity.

krageon 4y ago
To be an atrocity, it has to be extremely ethically wrong for some reason. I do not think it was, so I do not agree it was an atrocity. If it is the least-bad long term option, that makes it in context the ethical choice. Hence, not an atrocity.
- ahtihn 4y ago
  > If it is the least-bad long term option The thing is you have no way to know that in advance. And people may disagree what "least-bad" even means, it's extremely subjective. I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice. This is more or less the trolley problem, so as you say it is entirely subjective. We're just going to have to agree to disagree :)

srazzaque 4y ago

> acted unequivocally as absolute monsters I'll never forget the day a friend told me: "the Japanese were absolutely ruthless. I mean, these guys made the _nazis_ say 'what the hell is wrong with the Japanese?'" Which led me to read about this man: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe

eastbound 4y ago

In an alternate ending, Japan would not have surrendered, and, like in Berlin, fought till the end. Every large city would have been bombed, one after another. Only the military would have been far enough from cities to live.

rich_sasha 4y ago

I'd phrase it differently, but I think it's basically what happened. Japanese atrocities against civilians in China and Korea were enormous. Japanese treatment of US PoWs was horrendous. Japanese troops continued to fight literally to the last man, just to try and kill as many Americans as they could. I think when fighting an all-out war against an opponent like this, it's hard to self-limit. Further, the Japanese approach of never surrendering produced some gargantuan casualties. The Battle of Iwo Jima [1] was apparently the turning point in American thinking. After breaking the back of Japanese Imperial Fleet, Americans figured they need to start taking territory, which meant mostly invading islands. Iwo Jima had notable, but not extreme importance. And again, the Japanese would just not surrender. Quoting Wikipedia, of the 21,000 Japanese troops, only 216 were taken prisoner, and these were mostly unconscious or disabled soldiers who could physically not fight. The rest fought tooth, nail and bayonet against each and every American, and died eventually. Add 6k American soldiers who died in that one battle, and suddenly dropping an extra nuke on a city of 100,000 looks, weirdly, like a life-saving manoeuvre. And Iwo Jima wasn't even that important, or particularly close to Japan proper, you could expect casualties to only get significantly worse. This doesn't even count the wounded, which in a military context doesn't usually mean a bloody nose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima