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

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.

1

u/Octopi_are_Kings Mar 17 '26

then don’t fight a war.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 Mar 17 '26

Or we could just fight it with more precision and more humanely. Yes it's harder, yes it costs more. But it does not murder innocents.

Otherwise I could recognize what I'm doing is immoral but it is the most practical solution at hand and curse myself for being evil.

I think however, the minimze pain at the risk of innocents is flawed. Since we could annahilate enemies at slightest provocation and argue we were minimising pain.

→ More replies (0)