… is it bad I feel less bad about Hiroshima and Nagasaki now?
I’m gonna clarify for people because It really feels like people are misinterpreting what I’m saying. I don’t feel less bad about the civilians dying not at all. It’s terrible that’s civilians died. I feel less bad that it happened at all. If it was any other city that was purely civilian, I would not be saying this to begin with. However, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were evidently major players in the Japanese military. If the whole thing could’ve been avoided without the bombs needing to be dropped at all, I would’ve much preferred that, but I don’t really think the Japanese back then were the giving up type.
two war crimes don't cancel each other out. nuking 2 civilian populations isn't less bad because of Nanking. the empire and its military did horrible things, that doesn't justify incinerating children imo. might just be a commie cuck though
The argument that's genuinely made about the nuking of two cities is how many lives did it save in the long run.
The war would have continued for YEARS against a population arming their women and children with spears. A population that had already notoriously blow them, and us soldiers up with grenades when confronted with capture. And in those instances I'm also talking women and children.
The fire bombing of Tokyo took more lives than the bomb on Hiroshima. Would actions like these have continued to end the war?
Bottom line is, war is fucking terrible but if you're in a terrible war and have the opportunity to end it promptly, do you take the opportunity despite the cost?
Who am I to say, I'm just glad I never have to make those decisions.
Not to mention that many times this topic gets limited to the casualties on the American and Japanese fronts. People easily forget the Japanese empire was killing tens of thousands of civilians in continental Asia *every single week*. Stopping the Empire meant a stop to those massacres
Do you know what names we don't have handy to win online morality arguments? Not a single name of a single murdered baby lost to unit 731. Or the names of any of the children who would have been born to any number of the 2400 Americans killed at Pearl Harbor.
Nuclear weaponry is horrifying to contemplate, but just as horrifying is the realities of war itself. Fire bombings on Japan actually killed more than the atomic bombs did, and burning to death is a gruesome way to go.
Sure, just as soon as you tell me what 7-month-old Eunice Wilson, 2-year-old Shirley Kinue Hirasaki, and 8-year-old Barbara June Ornellas did to help man or maintain any of the fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.
•
u/Cool_Ad_7767 2d ago edited 2d ago
… is it bad I feel less bad about Hiroshima and Nagasaki now?
I’m gonna clarify for people because It really feels like people are misinterpreting what I’m saying. I don’t feel less bad about the civilians dying not at all. It’s terrible that’s civilians died. I feel less bad that it happened at all. If it was any other city that was purely civilian, I would not be saying this to begin with. However, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were evidently major players in the Japanese military. If the whole thing could’ve been avoided without the bombs needing to be dropped at all, I would’ve much preferred that, but I don’t really think the Japanese back then were the giving up type.