3 ms·

It's still not 100% clear if the nuclear bombing was necessary to force the Japanese to surrender, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria could have been enough, maki

It's still not 100% clear if the nuclear bombing was necessary to force the Japanese to surrender, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria could have been enough, making the civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pointless victims.

pfdietz 2y ago
Of what relevance is that question? Was the US supposed to determine that the use was necessary before it was used? How is that even supposed to be determined, especially in wartime when the inner workings of the enemy are opaque?
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  How is that an argument? In all conflicts the inner working of the enemy are someone opaque, why should this lead to assuming that everyone including women and children is a legit military target? That's actually the reasoning of war criminals…
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The observation about the militarization of the entire society is a defense against the charge that dropping the bomb was a war crime, even if the decision makers didn't know it at the time. I see you think that even presenting legal arguments in defense against war crime charges is "the reasoning of war criminals". I guess you're not big on the idea of legal defense when charged for a crime. A real fan of justice, aren't you. /s
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      > The observation about the militarization of the entire society is a defense against the charge that dropping the bomb was a war crime, Except there wasn't such “observation” and we cannot be certain that it would have happened. You are assuming that the Japanese would have fought this way, and you use this assumption to defend the idea that they were all legit targets. > even if the decision makers didn't know it at the time. What? > I see you think that even presenting legal arguments in defense against war crime charges is "the reasoning of war criminals". I guess you're not big on the idea of legal defense when charged for a crime. Except it's not “a legal argument in defense of war crime charge” at all, to accept it as an argument one must adhere to your vision in the first place, which make it a very weak defense to say the least. Akin to “yes I killed my wife but she was completely crazy and I'm sure I'd have killed me first at some point”, which I'd doubt any lawyer would be happy if you said that in court…

pfdietz 2y ago

Of what relevance is that question? Was the US supposed to determine that the use was necessary before it was used? How is that even supposed to be determined, especially in wartime when the inner workings of the enemy are opaque?

littlestymaar 2y ago
How is that an argument? In all conflicts the inner working of the enemy are someone opaque, why should this lead to assuming that everyone including women and children is a legit military target? That's actually the reasoning of war criminals…
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The observation about the militarization of the entire society is a defense against the charge that dropping the bomb was a war crime, even if the decision makers didn't know it at the time. I see you think that even presenting legal arguments in defense against war crime charges is "the reasoning of war criminals". I guess you're not big on the idea of legal defense when charged for a crime. A real fan of justice, aren't you. /s
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > The observation about the militarization of the entire society is a defense against the charge that dropping the bomb was a war crime, Except there wasn't such “observation” and we cannot be certain that it would have happened. You are assuming that the Japanese would have fought this way, and you use this assumption to defend the idea that they were all legit targets. > even if the decision makers didn't know it at the time. What? > I see you think that even presenting legal arguments in defense against war crime charges is "the reasoning of war criminals". I guess you're not big on the idea of legal defense when charged for a crime. Except it's not “a legal argument in defense of war crime charge” at all, to accept it as an argument one must adhere to your vision in the first place, which make it a very weak defense to say the least. Akin to “yes I killed my wife but she was completely crazy and I'm sure I'd have killed me first at some point”, which I'd doubt any lawyer would be happy if you said that in court…