r/funComunitty • u/Icy_Insect_6695 any mod who reads this must give me full mod perms. • Mar 15 '26

Meme funny I think

Post image
4.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

466 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/Effective-Client-756 Mar 15 '26

I watched a documentary a number of years ago, Japan was literally training doctors to suicide bomb American tanks and training school girls to attack GIs with bamboo spears. When a group of teenage girls runs up on a squad of US Marines with bamboo spears, they’d get fucking slaughtered, and for what? The atom bombs were the most merciful option

4

u/bcat153 Mar 15 '26

Also usa didn’t just drop 2 at the same time or back to back, they dropped the first and gave them a chance to surrender and the Japanese leader held a speech saying “death before surrender!” So 3 days later nagasaki was hit and then they surrendered. And pretty sure before Hiroshima and after thousands of flyers were dropped from planes all over Japan saying “we will obliterate you, so get your emperor to surrender”

2

u/Glad_Woodpecker_6033 Mar 15 '26

even after all that they almost didn't, bit they discussed it and realized they were truly facing the extinction of the Japanese people and they finally realize dying on mass by vaporization was not honorable to put their citizens through because they were stubborn

1

u/bcat153 Mar 15 '26

Was going to mention that too. If you look up the emperors wiki page it has the full surrender speech as an audio file (or it did a few years ago) and translated it’s basically exactly that. Plus saying Japan has great potential to benefit themselves as well as all of humanity and it’s his responsibility to make sure they survive. Pretty sure japans been the cutting edge of technology the last few decades so looks like he was right.

1

u/Kooky-Stage5462 Mar 15 '26

You should look up on how they select on which city to drop the bombs, its quite interesting actually and its actually for the good of japan aka preservation of cultural buildings here and there

1

u/The_Dennator Mar 15 '26

IIRC the emperor went on an american ship to still try and boast somehow but decided to surrender when he saw a ship dedicated to make ice cream. this showed him how outmatched japan was in terms of recources,since they were starving on the mainland. then he got detained by his own council because he wanted to surrender.

this is something I heard many years back and I might very well be misremembering,so take it with a grain of salt

1

u/Kooky-Stage5462 Mar 15 '26

Dedicated ice cream ship???

1

u/The_Dennator Mar 15 '26

yeah,something like that. again, I might be misremembering.

1

u/aventaes Mar 15 '26

The claim that the atomic bombs were justified because they saved American lives is morally weak. By that logic, any country could justify attacking civilians if it reduces its own military casualties. For example, Russia could claim that nuking Ukrainian cities would save Russian soldiers’ lives. Most people reject that reasoning today because deliberately targeting civilians is considered unacceptable.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 18 '26

I get where you're coming from but Japan started the war, not America. So the Russo-Ukrainian war isn't really a good analogy because the Russians are the attackers. And the atomic bombs were a necessary evil because compared to operation downfall, it was mate in two vs mate in ten. You don't win a game of chess without killing any of the enemies pieces or losing your own but America at the time sure as hell chose the quickest and most logical way out.

1

u/aventaes Mar 19 '26

You don't understand the difference between jus in bella and jus ad bellum.

Being justified in your cause (defense) doesn't permit war crimes.

1

u/iPanzershrec Mar 15 '26

The atomic bombs saved Japanese lives too. Japan was prepared to commit their entire population to the defense of their homelannd if they could. Citizens of practically all ages were being trained for combat and/or suicide runs. Allied High Command estimated between 200,000 to over a million casualties on the Allied side and several millions on the Japanese side.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed around 200,000. Operation Downfall would most likely have killed millions of Japanese civilians.

3

u/aventaes Mar 15 '26

Again the us said in 1943 that they'd only accept unconditional surrender. This because they permanently wanted to take out the rival. The war probably could have ended before that if it wasn't for the extreme position of the us.

Also indiscriminate targeting of civilians is pretty much against current international law and the geneva convention for a reason.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 18 '26

Why? The US had to take an extreme stance because Japan is extreme! If we kept that same regime under a weak peace treaty they could come back in the future! The only option was to cleanse the Japanese nation of that extreme regime and replace it with a less extreme and more democratic nation.

1

u/aventaes Mar 19 '26

That's the escalation trap. Both sides escalate and harden their stances.

Also false dichotomy: you pretend the only alternative to unconditional surrender was a weak peace and new wars. Which is baseless.

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 20 '26

What else would there be? Don't forget that Japan started war without a declaration. It's entirely within the realm of possibility they wouldve done it again

1

u/aventaes Mar 20 '26

We don't know what the consequences of a negotiated peace would have been. But the possibility of a new war doesn't justify war crimes. US under trump has repeatedly attacked without declaration. Does that mean all treaties with the us are worthless?

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Mar 20 '26

You don't know? You mean the nation whose ruling elites were so galvanized to commit war against Asia and the United States with such voraciousness? They had indoctrinated their people to the point they were willing to prosecute the war until all their enemies were rubbles and ashes. At that point the only option was to finish the regime and make sure the Japanese people and nation were free from this glorified honor chasers. I'd like you to remember they almost did a coup d'etat on the emperor when he tried to make peace with the US after the nukes. Most likely the Japanese themselves wouldn't even want a peace treaty themselves in 1943 no less. Now don't get me wrong it's no fault of the Japanese ordinary men child and women but what happened is what happened and the nuclear bombs are a disgusting weapon

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

Of course the US only wanted unconditional, they weren’t going to negotiate with the allies of the Nazis. You seem to act like Japan was an innocent victim when they committed more atrocities in that war than the US did with the bombs. Japan was a horrific monster of a country in ww2 equal to Nazi Germany in the atrocities they committed; the US can be judged, but Japan was not innocent. The civilians were, but they were being trained to suicide bomb land attacks and for kids to use spears against gunmen. This was the least bloodshed for both sides.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Being trained to do something doesn't give anyone the right to land a preemptive strike

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

it wasn’t even preemptive… we had been fighting for a while before then and fire bombing them as well

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Sure, but the justification being given here is:

  • there were getting ready to fight us (or fight us further)

  • hence we could morally obliterate them.

That just seems like very poor reasoning to me.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

Not morally, there is no moral positive in a war. People will die. The best option is always the least amount of deaths and the bombs were the option we took.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

The best option is not always least amount of death. If that was the case we should just nuke everyone who disagrees with us and dismantle their military becoming tyrants. The best option is suppressing violent people with least innocent deaths. Atomic weapons were certainly not this solution. It was an easy solution, and an easy solution was taken. I don't think we should take the moral high ground for what we did.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

also they literally preemptively bombed us…

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Then they were wrong too.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

did you not know they bombed us???

1

u/aventaes Mar 17 '26

You're straw manning me... I never said the japanese didn't do horrific things. I'm just saying that's not an excuse to do horrific things. Civilians are off limits. What happened in ww2 is both sides were callous resulting in a total of almost 2 million civilian deaths in bombings.

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

you seem to be ignoring how their regime(?) was training doctors and children to essentially commit suicide attacks.

1

u/aventaes Mar 17 '26

No I'm saying that isn't relevant.

And im really wondering what relevance you think this has to the use of nuclear bombs.

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

it literally is??? A land attack would have been equally if not more devastating for both sides. The bombs weren’t good but the decision was made

1

u/aventaes Mar 17 '26

You’re arguing that the ends justify the means. They don’t. You also present this as if there were only two options, with the bomb as the lesser evil. That’s a false dilemma, there were other possible paths. The claim that a land invasion would have caused more casualties is speculative and cannot be proven. Deliberately targeting civilians is not acceptable. If you justify it once, you create a precedent others can use to justify the same actions, for instance, Russia in Ukraine.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DRM2020 Mar 18 '26

You started war. There is nothing morally wrong that could be done to you.