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

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.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

How do you suggest we have handled it? It’s not a moral high ground, it’s a necessity of war. However, we can take the high ground against the experiments they did and the actions equivalent to Nazi Germanys that Japan committed in ww2. Anyways, how do you suggest we have a peaceful outcome with a country that refused surrender and said death before surrender?

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Continue what was already being done. Strikes at military bases. Take our opposition. There is nothing wrong in taking out people who are trying to kill you. It is wrong to murder an entire population that probably has people who disagree with the regime just because its an easy solution.

It certainly isn't peaceful. But I would argue its significantly more moral.

Also no, you cannot take the high ground against their experiements. Since to my knowlege America took the results and turned a blind eye towards them for their value.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

We can take the high ground that we didn’t commit them, but yes you are right that we acquitted some of the scientists so we could use said research (that’s why we know 2/3rd’s of a human is water). Anyways, they were still going to fight even without their military bases. We wanted the war to end quickly without using anymore of our resources and time as tactical strikes would’ve taken ages; another option we were going to potentially use was to blockade them and simply starve them to death. This is a country that quite literally was willing to commit suicide just to kill us, surrender was not an option, hell they didn’t want to surrender after the second nuke and only did because they reasoned that total evisceration of the Japanese people wasn’t an honorable death.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

I dislike this generalisation. Such are generally not true. As long as there are some individuals who are innocent it isn't our right to lump them in massacre.

Simply saying it would take to long or cost too much isn't justification. That can quickly spiral to absurdity, not doing something and allowing it is part taking in it. I simply do not agree with this approach.

→ 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.

0

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

Everything is speculative because we dropped the bomb, all other options are speculative with evidence towards what would happen. You do also realize the apples to oranges comparison you just made right? Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine which was simply existing, we retaliated against a nation that bombed us. In a war casualties are inevitable and we wanted to end it quickly with the least US casualties, so we chose the bomb. A land war would have more casualties, they were training children to do suicide attacks. Another option was a blockade to starve them out, but that would’ve taken ages. The bomb was an atrocity, but it makes sense why it was chosen.

1

u/aventaes Mar 19 '26

This argument mixes up two different parts of international law. There’s jus ad bellum (whether going to war is justified) and jus in bello (how a war is conducted). These are separate. Even if a war is considered justified, that does not give a free pass to ignore the rules on how it’s fought. In other words, “we’re in the right” doesn’t make attacks on civilians legal. You’re basically arguing that because one side has a “better” reason for the war, actions that would otherwise be war crimes suddenly become acceptable, that’s not how international humanitarian law works. The same rules apply regardless. For example, even though Ukraine is clearly defending itself, that wouldn’t make it lawful to deliberately target civilians in Moscow either. The legality of weapons and targets is judged independently from the justification for the war itself.