Imagine, just imagine if Russia fucking nuked Ukraine using that same justification.
We'll see how long the normal-ass people of Ukraine put up with that before they decide to tar and feather him.
Reminder that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was also done for the purpose of human experimentation, they used 2 different kinds of nuclear bombs and wanted to see if there was any difference in how they affected the human body
Even before absorbing the remnants of the axis after the war :amerikkka: was already just as evil as any of them
As far as I understand, the difference in the two bombs was the just the detonation mechanism. One used a kind of gun and the other used implosion to unite the fissile materials. Richard Rhodes “the making of the atomic bomb” is also an excellent resource if your into more of the science
Yeah they didn't even test the gun type because it was basically foolproof design
John Pilger's The Coming War on China opens by demonstrating that the US intentionally irradiated the denizens of the Marshall Islands to see what radiation does to the human body.
They didn't even drop their ambiguous warning pamphlets on Nagasaki before it got nuked.
Lmao "innocent people die in a war" as an excuse for committing warcrimes on a mass scale to purposefully make the "innocent people die in a war", sentence everyone who survived the initial blast to a slow and painful death, and traumatize their descendents to this day.
On top of that "we killed more people when we firebombed another civilian population" as a justification for doing so. Holy shit.
Fucking philosopher king, genius amongst men. Americans who think like this should all be rounded up and shot like dogs.
Yeah saying "nukes aren't significantly more fucked up than normal war" is not a defense for nuking people
"We've killed millions in other ways and those are fine so killing millions quickly is also fine!"
No mate, the firebombings weren't justified either.
Listen we may have killed a ton of innocent people, but you need to understand, we killed a ton of innocent people. Hope that clears things up.
On top of that “we killed more people when we firebombed another civilian population” as a justification for doing so. Holy shit.
I tend to see that line more as observational than moral. As in "once we decided to invade the home islands we'd functionally ceded the assumption that killing 150,000 civilians in an aerial bombardment was going to be acceptable". The tool we used was incidental relative to the need to slaughter Japanese civilians into subservience.
Americans who think like this should all be rounded up and shot like dogs.
We're running into that paradox of tolerance with a statement like this. You kinda have to ask how many residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nevermind Tokyo) would be glibly asserting "the Manchurians fucking deserved it" twenty years beforehand.
If we can assert that American civilians who can't sympathize with Japanese civilians should be slaughtered, what do we think about Japanese civilians who thought the same of Koreans or Philippines or Vietnamese civilians? The justifications of violence never seem to end.
Idk obviously the person arguing for nuking a city is wrong, but just saying "the bomb killed civilians" is not a great argument in my view. The counter there is obvious, and the reply made it: all war kills civilians. War is hell. In the mind of libs, dropping the bombs was justified specifically because it prevented even larger scale civilian deaths that would have resulted from a full scale invasion.
I think to argue against the bombs requires two things: pointing out the fact that the bombs were dropped largely as a show of force against the USSR/to prevent them from getting concessions from the Japanese government, and the inherent racism to the belief that the Japanese would have "fought to the last man" in the case of an invasion.
Yeah the guy against nukes doesnt have the right argument, but his sentiments are correct. Nuking civilians was not justified and nuking a military target wouldnt be either. I appreciate his attempt to go against the grain of a shitty :reddit-logo: post even if he doesnt have all the tools do so properly.
most liberals don't even know the USSR was anywhere near Russia at the time.
Bunch of Mcgraw Hill textbook brains. Beat them into comas with lead filled socks, give them a taste of the actual pain that their suburban life is devoid of
Invite them to drink the water in Guam around where all those depleted uranium rounds were dumped.
Wake up
Wait so now you WANT me to be woke? Make up your fucking minds already.
Well, then I'll only demand that the US commanders that ordered it get the same treatment as Hideki Tojo and Akira Muto
Their position within this monstrous scheme, and their access to the spoils of exploitation must be justified and one of those tasks is excusing the upper ranks from any slander or accusation of genocide. They can't afford to quickly look at the other side of the argument even though they show some signs of being literate. They can't even throw in a quick "Death to America".
I've had a similar reaction before with some 'free-thinker' about nukes, and it all boiled down to "can't get rid of nukes because others make nukes because we make nukes because others make nukes because we make nukes because other make nukes..." legit broke their brain in the attempt to break my brain with this logic.
Sorry, I don't make the rules.
By this logic, we need nukes in major US population centers to end the empire.
Like I gotta wonder what these demons think about 9/11
No Leftist really wants to confront how based slamming a sky-bus full of petite bourgeois slugs into the symbol of global financialization was, circa 2001.
I have to wonder what the world would be like today if the folks flying those planes had been Bolivian guerrillas instead of Saudi zealots.
I usually try to appeal to the radiation angle, it makes libs squirm when they try to justify the children born after the war dying of bone cancer
of course this came from HistoryMemes, the premier fascist shithole
