• Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    52·
    4 天前

    The last one did stop armed countries doing total war at one another, at the price of everyone being perpetually fifteen minutes away from horrific deaths.

    Is it worth it depends on if/when ICBMs start falling, personally I’m intent on not finding out by living in a big city centre 🙂

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 天前

      Adam Connover (of Adam Ruins Everything fame) did an interview with an author (Annie something) about all this. It was very scary to hear the testimonials from past defense department people

    • NotSteve_@piefed.caEnglish
      17·
      4 天前

      The last one did stop armed countries doing total war at one another

      It just sucks for countries not armed getting attacked by those that are since everyone else is too afraid to step into help directly…

    • freebee@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      4 天前

      Still no guarantee of the blissful instant kill unfortunately. The ones aimed at your big city may be the ones that fail? Or you big city may be part of a country that somehow doesn’t get directly involved after all?

    • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
      5·
      4 天前

      The conflicts will continue to be violent until the death-machines are stopped being built by everyone.

  • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    4 天前

    The Bomb absolutely saved lives, American ones. By forcing Japan into surrendering rather than having to take the mainland with conventional warfare, a lot of lives were saved.

    • HailSeitan@lemmy.world
      24·
      4 天前

      General MacArthur said he saw “no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.”

      Eisenhower recounted in his memoirs that he told the Secretary of State that dropping the bomb was “completely unnecessary,” and “our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” Eisenhower affirmed his stance in an interview with Newsweek, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

      Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, said that in his opinion, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

      The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Chester Nimitz, said in 1945 that “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”

        • duckythescientist
          2·
          3 天前

          Are you saying you wish to keep spreading misinformation because you are too busy to learn better/correct information? If you are too busy, the absolute minimum you should do is not spread your opinion.

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 天前

          Japan had already surrendered for one. The US demanded unconditional surrender. Of course, after the bombs dropped the US allowed them to have their original terms (keeping the emperor).

          Also a good arguments that we would not have tested it on a white population but could rationalize it on a non-white population.

          Don’t forget the gratuitous destruction with the firebombing of Tokyo where 100,000 civilians where burned to death in one night.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      4 天前

      I doubt the US would actually staged an invasion when the US could’ve just kept on fire bombing japan until they surrender. By that time, Japan’s navy was in shambles, their airforce depleted and litterally suiciding pilots as a last ditch effort.

      But the pressure to nuke them was to simply end the war fast and prevent russia from laying claims on japan’s mainland.

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        3 天前

        It’s impossible to say really, the war was clearly lost by the time the bombs were dropped.

        It’s really down to how stubborn Japan’s leadership was.