this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
306 points (99.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43328 readers
870 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Loss in terms of money or efforts. Could be recent or ancient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Not this again. Just because you can end a war faster by intentionally targeting civilians doesn’t mean it’s ever going to be moral or ethical. The U.S. government considers that act terrorism by definition.

I’m not going to relitigate the whole argument again. The U.S. government knew women and children were in the cities and the military proceeded to nuke the cities instead of an uninhabited because they wanted to show off the power of the weapon and observe the level of urban damage it could do.

[–] ToastyMedic@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And remind me the estimated casualty counts of operation downfall, along with the civilian casualties and damage. Not to mention a North Japan and South Japan like germany.

You won't. But consider a pragmatic view and not an idealistic view, so be it if you need a show of force for an enemy who refuses to surrender and would rather destroy themselves and all who would try to make them yield utterly and totally.

[–] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could do a show of force in an area where people don't live, and then threaten to use it in cities or something. Like other countries with nukes do...

[–] ToastyMedic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Are you kidding? Not to say we didn't exactly have that luxury in 1945, but we didn't.

We had enough uranium and plutonium for the 3 bombs, and that was it. Our bluff was that we would keep doing it. And the nuke hadn't been displayed before that point either, so what good is a threat when it hasn't been shown before? We did exactly that and they didn't care.

load more comments (1 replies)