“Crime.”
What bullshit.
Go dig up what the Japanese did throughout that war and say “crime” again.
STFU.
Discussion
The citizens of Hiroshima didn’t deserve that. War at this scale is a tragedy of modern civilization.
Bombing civilians is factually a war crime. Whatever Japan's government did, the people who were vaporized were not responsible for it. By this logic, the are about 330 million Americans who deserve to be nuked because of what DC does.
It was more about destroying their culture and incompatible values with democracy. Democracy is evil.
Democracy is evil?
You’d rather a god emperor?
Moron.
"God forbid that we should ever be so miserable as to sink into a Republic.” 6 One of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most gifted of them all, regretted that the United States could not become a monarchy. Van Buren saw in Hamilton a monarchist, 7 certainly a conviction well grounded in facts 8 in view of Hamilton’s speeches at the Federal Convention in 1787 and 1788 in New York. And Francis Lieber very rightly pointed out that the Declaration of Independence is not really an antimonarchical document. 9 The sentence, “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people” merely condemns George III but, at the same time, voices great respect for the royal office. The average American today would be surprised to hear the term “ruler of a free people” in which he sees a contradictio in adjecto. But in formulations like these we perceive a few aspects of Jefferson’s highly contradictory character and mind. He does stand near the mainstream of American leftist thought and deserved Hamilton’s severe strictures. 10 But then he was also the man who, in a letter to Mann Page, spoke about the “swinish multitudes.” 11 And Gouverneur Morris, on the extreme right, wrote to Nathanael Green in 1781, “I will go farther, I have no hope that our Union can subsist except in the form of an absolute monarchy.”
Of the American founders, Alexander Hamil-
ton was a monarchist. Likewise, the Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, had
strong monarchist leanings. George Washington expressed his profound distaste of
democracy in a letter of September 30,1798, to James McHenry. John Adams was
convinced that every society grows aristocrats as inevitably as a field of corn will
grow some large ears and some small. In a letter to John Taylor he insisted, like Plato
and Aristotle, that democracy would ultimately evolve into despotism, and in a
letter to Jefferson he declared that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, en-
deavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a
short time, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel." James Madison, in a letter to
Jared Parks, complained of the difficulty "of protecting the rights of property
against the spirit of democracy." And even Thomas Jefferson, probably the most
"democratic" of the Founders, confessed in a letter to John Adams that he consid-
ered
the natural aristocracy .. . as the most precious gift of nature, for the
instruction, the trusts and governments of society. And indeed, it would
have been inconsistent in creation to have formed men for the social state,
and not have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns
of society. May we not even say that that form of government is best, which
provides most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the
offices of government?
Characterizing the general attitude of the founders, then, the most appropriate pro-
nouncement is that of John Randolph of Roanoke: "I am an aristocrat: I love liberty, I
hate equality."
Lots of babble there.
Yes, I don't agree with it all, but that's an alert of how bad democracy is, and we're living its results.
The republic can last until the people realize they can vote themselves largesse.
Women and those not working shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Even the father of the left, Jean Jacques Rousseau, said it can only work in small communities ( like those towns of 500inhabitants in schweiz) where everybody knows each other. Because if someone has a problem he/she can walk 5km and move to the next town, like forking communities in some sense.
I'm an ancap
nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk I know you're not a libertarian or ancap, but never heard or read your critics on it. When you have the time I would like to know it.
Considering your reply is completely illogical your reply is wrong.
The government only job is to protect their citizen! Japan should’ve never attack first! That’s my opinion. I love Japan and everyone in this world 🌎
The vast majority of the people murdered in the bombing were innocent. It was the city with the largest Christian population, and one of the major anti-war cities in Japan.
They're not responsible for the crimes of others just because they lived under the same government, have similar genetics, or any other such nonsense.
Cool.
Now do the rape of Nanking or look at hundreds of other actual crimes committed by the Japanese.
It’s easy to rewrite history 80 years later but to suggest the bombing was a crime or unnecessary is wrong.
So if your neighbor was a jerk, I can slap you. When you get mad at me, I say, “But your neighbor was a jerk so what I did wasn’t wrong.” <- totally sound logic…
It was a world war.
Your analogy is retarded.
STFU until you can come up with a coherent argument.
Stop looking for excuses for genocide
Bombing a few cities isn’t “genocide.”
Though, the Japanese did engage in their own “holocausts.”
Bombing a massive amount of innocent people because the rulers over them did bad things is pure evil. Go to bed and stop arguing such a preposterous thesis. You’re now muted.
Wahhhh “you’re saying things that are accurate and that I don’t like to hear so I’m muting you.”
No body cares.
It is not that simple. You can make a strong case that if the US had not murdered 100k civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese would not have surrendered, which would have necessitated a ground war in Japan for the Allies to win the war, that would have no doubt resulted in the death of millions of Japanese citizens.
They had ALREADY surrendered before the bombing.
And no, even if you could prove that, it still wouldn't justify it
The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, and no doubt they would not have surrendered on August 15, if not for the threat of more atomic bombs being dropped on their populations.
A more humane way to end the war IMO was to drop an atomic bomb on a military position or naval port which would have little civilian casualties, and then tell the Japanese that Tokyo would be destroyed next if they did not surrender that perhaps would have ended the war.
But it is very easy in 2023 to talk about what leaders in 1945 should have done. In August 1945 countries had just had more than a half decade of destroying each others cities and civilian populations already, and Truman was not going to risk the deaths of 100s of thousands of his troops to invade Japan. The Emperor would likely fought to the last man if not for the atomic bomb, based on historians judgement of the man.
Twats today love to rewrite history.
Fuck em
Hindsight is 2020. This isn't rewriting history but learning from it so we don't commit the same crimes and avoid the evils of the past.
We needed to respond, but we also needed to have avoided evil acts, and attacking innocents is one of the worst crimes. If we instead attacked a military compound, the blood of the innocents would be on the hands of the Japanese military because they put them in harm's way.
It’s rewriting history.
What’s done is done.
Is it helpful to study history? Certainly.
But to go back and say “should never have done this.” Without the context of the day is revisionist nonsense.
"Study history, but don't ever pass judgement over a moral decision!"
We study history so we can make observations and learn from it, especially moral lessons.
Rewriting history would be denying facts. That's literally the opposite of what I'm doing.
This is one of the cases where being an expert actually matters.
Have you studied WWII extensively? Do you have all of the context?
Are you 100% positive the Japanese would have surrendered if we had used the bomb elsewhere?
100%. Not 98 or 99 but 100%.
citation needed
No creation needed. The plain fact is that two cities with all their innocents were attacked. Evil is not resolved by more evil. A military base or the emperor's palace should have been the target, not innocents. Even the emperor's palace would be really iffy.
The issue is not whether we needed to respond militarily (whether surrender was given) but the manner and method of our response. That doesn't need a citation.
I believe it IS that simple nostr:npub1ul45aruuhu09e5nts8mn49wsvhu58q8qmpvyyvpa0qhuvljehnys4uyt0r . I have a worldview/religion that says that murdering people is always wrong.
Making theoretical death calculations is not my job. I’m not God.
Example, I could theorize that a daycare down the road is housing a future mass murderer. A few parents are super jacked up and are training their kids to kill.
I cannot go kill all those children because I calculate that it will likely save more lives in the long run. I don’t know the future and I have no green light to kill.
Honest question: where is your moral principle that gives you the right to kill innocent people? Do you subscribe to a religion that says this is okay?
Your arguments are nonsense.
So if you had the chance to murder Adolph Hitler in 1939 knowing his plans for the destruction of Europe/Russia and mass murder of the Jews, and you knew the likelihood of him being able to do it, you wouldn’t murder Hitler because you don’t know the future for sure and your worldview/religion that says murdering people is “always” wrong?
This hypothetical is ridiculous because humans can’t know the future, like who Hitler would become. That’s one of the main points why murdering people for better future outcomes is evil. If someone killed your child because they thought he would turn out bad, I have a feeling you wouldn’t shrug it off. Furthermore, the US didn’t just bomb Hitler, they bombed a bunch of innocent people along with some “bad guys”.
Why is this hard for you? Are you on team USA no matter what? Are you afraid of meeting your maker and therefore willing to murder to stay alive longer? I’m seriously asking.
Your hypotheticals so far have been literally retarded.
There’s no point in having a discussion with sub 80iq such as yourself.
You can’t see how absurd your points are.
For example, in this hypothetical you contradict yourself.
So dumb.
Like the Nazis did to the Brits?
It's easy to criticize these actions when us civilians have been isolated from the effects of war for so long.
Yes, Nukes are pure evil and should never be used in war again. But they also served as an effective deterrent against civilian attacks, creating the relatively peaceful world we take for granted today.
History should be remembered to learn from our past mistakes, not assign blame through the lens of today.