Comment

Comment on ‘There wasn’t enough about the horror’: Hiroshima survivors react to Oppenheimer

“They” were civilians. You may have had a point if they nuked strictly military targets, but they didn’t, they nuked two major civilian centers and they placed the epicenter of the blast in such a position so as to cause maximum carnage.

Any argument that it was anti Soviet (and that that makes it acceptable somehow) or that it was necessary is just atrocity apologia.

source

Sort:hotnew top

intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s true. We could have proven the existence of the bombs without killing anyone.

source
- intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Perhaps what we were proving was our own brutality though.
  
  source
DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
What do you think the 20 million victims of Imperial Japan were?

Who do you think invented the concept of total war?

Who do you think initially agreed to abide by the Geneva Conventions and then immediately betrayed them?

How many civilians do you think would have died in a ground invasion?

Don’t want to get your people bombed, don’t start bombing people. You want feel sad for the loss of people trapped by environmental circumstance in more than one way, knock yourself out, but their blood was on Hirohito and his government’s hands the moment their dumbasses decided to invade their “subhuman” neighbors.

source
- june@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  So they deserved it, because their government did terrible things.
  
  You understand that they lived under immense propaganda. Right? They deserved it just as much as the people of East Asia deserved the atrocities committed against them by the Japanese Imperial military.
  
  Would you support nuking Moscow, Jerusalem, or DC? Why not?
  
  source
  - intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Well, the most serious reason not to use any nukes today is because more than one army has them, so they can’t be used in a finite way.
    
    source