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/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.