3 ms·

First, the casualty estimates are just for US soldiers and is likely low. They fough against Japanese troops with a kill ratio of between 1:1 and 1:20 (in favor

First, the casualty estimates are just for US soldiers and is likely low. They fough against Japanese troops with a kill ratio of between 1:1 and 1:20 (in favor of the Marines) so it’s easy to extrapolate massive US casualties when fighting the then 80 million strong Japanese on home soil. I don’t know much about the second point, so you may be right. Third, you have to look at stats, not emotions. Battle deaths - in absolute terms and per capita - dropped like a stone after 1945.

pdonis 2y ago
> Battle deaths - in absolute terms and per capita - dropped like a stone after 1945. After rising like a rocket when WW II started. If you leave out WW I and WW II, it's not clear that post-1945 was more peaceful than pre-1914.
- FredPret 2y ago
  My original and subsequent posts were that the nuke made the world safer. Post-1945 battle deaths dropped to near-zero by comparison to pre-1945. Even one battle death is too many but having them go down overall is very good.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > My original and subsequent posts were that the nuke made the world safer. Post-1945 battle deaths dropped to near-zero by comparison to pre-1945. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well known logical fallacy. That is what you are doing here. Also, the relevant comparison, as I said before, is not post-1945 vs. pre-1945. It is something like post-1945 vs. pre-1914, so that the comparison involves peacetime conditions on both sides.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      I’m claiming a direct causality between how terrible the nukes were and how peaceful the subsequent decades have been. The cold war was cold because of M.A.D. And I will compare any periods I want. The nukes fell in 1945, so I compare all of human history before that and after that. There’s a clear and massive decline even if you only look at pre-1914 rates.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > I’m claiming a direct causality You are inferring direct causality based on one event following another. That is the logical fallacy I referred to. > There’s a clear and massive decline even if you only look at pre-1914 rates. That's not what I see, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

pdonis 2y ago

> Battle deaths - in absolute terms and per capita - dropped like a stone after 1945. After rising like a rocket when WW II started. If you leave out WW I and WW II, it's not clear that post-1945 was more peaceful than pre-1914.

FredPret 2y ago
My original and subsequent posts were that the nuke made the world safer. Post-1945 battle deaths dropped to near-zero by comparison to pre-1945. Even one battle death is too many but having them go down overall is very good.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > My original and subsequent posts were that the nuke made the world safer. Post-1945 battle deaths dropped to near-zero by comparison to pre-1945. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well known logical fallacy. That is what you are doing here. Also, the relevant comparison, as I said before, is not post-1945 vs. pre-1945. It is something like post-1945 vs. pre-1914, so that the comparison involves peacetime conditions on both sides.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    I’m claiming a direct causality between how terrible the nukes were and how peaceful the subsequent decades have been. The cold war was cold because of M.A.D. And I will compare any periods I want. The nukes fell in 1945, so I compare all of human history before that and after that. There’s a clear and massive decline even if you only look at pre-1914 rates.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > I’m claiming a direct causality You are inferring direct causality based on one event following another. That is the logical fallacy I referred to. > There’s a clear and massive decline even if you only look at pre-1914 rates. That's not what I see, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.