this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
580 points (94.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
742 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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
 

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.

[โ€“] lukzak@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.

Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?

[โ€“] Parsnip8904@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn't a decision that I find ethical in any way.

[โ€“] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago

It is really unpopular in some parts of Lemmy.

[โ€“] HumbertTetere@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The imminent threat of an invasion (assembled in staging area and ready to go) could have been tried before. It would have been very costly, but would have been necessary anyway for an actual invasion if the nuclear bombs didn't cause a surrender (there was a coup attempt to prevent it, so it was never a sure thing even with the bombs).

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

How could they have made the threat of invasion any more imminent, though?

[โ€“] jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 1 year ago

No cause if we invaded japan how would we scare the soviet union?!! Those japanese children whose entire families were burnt to a crisp in nuclear holocaust were needed in order to scare big bad communism

Wait, what do you mean the soviets stole the nuclear secrets from us?!! What what do you mean that France figured out the creation of nuclear weapons all on their own?? The freakin zionists have them too?!!!

Dw, this isn't an unpopular opinion, OP is just the most intelligent democrat voter

[โ€“] dom@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

68 civilians died in pearl harbor.

140,000 died in Hiroshima.

I wouldn't call that in proportion.

I upvoted you because I vehemently disagree with your opinion. It's kind of skirting the line on being straight up evil

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 9 points 1 year ago

You skipped several million deaths.

[โ€“] AlexisLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd say this is not an unpopular opinion. It was (and I believe still is) US govt position on these events. It's also wrong

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Could you summarize the video?

[โ€“] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 3 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

It did less damage than the firebombings and in the end probably took less life than prolonged war, the first was absolutely justified. The second is debatable.