this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
304 points (96.3% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2607 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 7 months ago (18 children)

Three things:

-This is moving the goal post of the argument that I was replying to and irrelevant to this conversation.

-Theorizing about the consequences at stake in the war doesn't assume anything retrospectively. The decision to deploy nukes was not made with the knowledge we possess after the fact.

-It's very likely that any other option that would finally result in the complete cessation of an enemy as ideologically tenacious as Imperial Japan would've far exceeded a price that was able to be paid that late into the second world war.

[–] ilmagico@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (17 children)

You made an implicit assumption, and that assumption is very possibly wrong. You are "theorizing about the consequences" just as much as me by making that assumption.

For example, I can think of at least one way the US could've tried to avoid the huge civilian death toll: drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they're next. I don't claim to say it would've worked for sure, but at least they would've tried.

[–] stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

You made an implicit assumption

I don't even know how to continue this conversation. I didn't have to assume anything about Imperial Japan's reception to alternative methods of prompted surrender to arrive at the conclusion that the theoretical devastation of Fascism proliferating is at all comparable to the nuclear bombs that were deployed.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, are you a stoned emo man, or a stone demoman, or what?

[–] stonedemoman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

You've solved my secret username puzzle.

Also, yes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)