"You're a leftist if you thinking using nuclear weaponry - twice - on largely civilian targets isn't good and should have been avoided."
Yeah, that get's old, try again.
There were so many other ways to handle things. And, if a show of force had been needed, why not drop one on an empty area to start? Or an isolated military base or something? Fucking obliterating an air base would have sent a message too.
Look, it's not even about the nukes, that's kind of a distraction anyway. Nukes exist, and they're a tool. I think nuking civilians is bad, just like I think the nonnuclear atrocities are bad too, from all sides. The firebombing of both Germany and Britain were evil.
I get things spiral in war, but you're taking a chunk out of your own soul when you engage in such actions. Intentionally targeting civilians, intentional starvation, all that...it's bad, and you should just say 'we're not doing that,' even if it's a very effective strategy of war.
I'm just not going to sign off on the bombing - especially the double bombing - of Japan.
WW2 was a fucking dumpster fire from the start, and everyone had plenty of offramps.
Talk like "chunk of your soul" wank sounds nice and flowery when you're nowhere near any actual fighting, but if you asked any of the teenage marines who had to fight in Iwojima or Okinawa or any other useless battle when the war was already clearly over they'd probably say "fuck that nuke em again".
Yes! Except the battles weren't "useless" they were required to set up the invasion of the Home Islands.
Aside from liberating the Philippines, THAT was useless! McArthur had deserted his troops in disgrace & it was his vanity alone that required the Philippines to be liberated.
Every Allied soldier looking into the meatgrinder of Operation Olympic would gladly keep dropping atom bombs until the cows came home.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
Almost the entirety of Nagasaki casualties were civilian, and combined with Hiroshima it was still about 95%, last I heard. Those aren't acceptable numbers.
'BUt tHey're cIVilIaN tArGetS' is just leftist historical revisionism in action.
Most of the anti-Nuclear propaganda is literally just left-over Soviet propaganda.
And, if a show of force had been needed, why not drop one on an empty area to start? Or an isolated military base or something? Fucking obliterating an air base would have sent a message too.
Because a show of force means nothing. Hell, Hiroshima by itself had no real effect on Japanese plans to continue the war. Nagasaki, and the possibility of more nuclear strikes is what helped end it.
Socialists of every variety are hard headed. That's why you see them support their rapists or killers. The ideology is too strong. The level of violence needed to dissuade a Leftist from attacking has to be so extreme, and so disproportionate, that a moral person would wince at the thought. And that level of violence would never make a single Leftist do anything but giggle.
It's a real problem.
The firebombing of both Germany and Britain were evil.
Don't forget Japan. Curtis LeMay killed 150,000 people in a single night.
WW2 was a fucking dumpster fire from the start, and everyone had plenty of offramp
Yeah, but who wanted to take them? Kaiser Wilhelm yelling from his mansion? Some die-hard Warren G. Harding supporters? Some left-over Huey Long supporters? Some dude sitting in a US prison because he didn't turn in his gold coins in 1935? Friedrich Hayek? Everyone in Denmark?
Nobody in power really wanted peace. Everyone in power either wanted Peace, or Socialism, which meant they didn't want peace. This includes people like the Labour Party of Britain. Each elite saw an opportunity to exploit.
It would have been 3 bombs on Japan, but they ran out of plutonium for Skinny Man.
I said in another comment: the use of the Bombs was discussed in depth. The reason they couldn't "demonstrate it" was because they only had 2 bombs until April '46. If their bluff failed? Then it was Operation Olympic time and the millions of deaths from just that invasion.
The post-war analysis of Olympic was: the Allies underestimated Japan's defenses by half: they were much stronger than the wildest imagination and Allied losses would have easily been double the already horrific estimates.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians is bad, but millions is worse, ok?
As it was, it was a bluff! There were no more Bombs to drop. A weaker bluff would have failed, it was literally 50-50 as it was.
Well when you realize that women or feminized men are writing these articles and arguing these points, it becomes more clear.
The lives of the military men matter not to them. The civilians will always matter more because of the women and (lesser so) the children amongst them.
They don't like the idea of dropping bombs on civilians because they get scared of the idea that they may actually be involved in the death and destruction that they're happy to support and vote for.
Much like how they love supporting trannies until you suggest they fuck one or that they are one.
"You're a leftist if you thinking using nuclear weaponry - twice - on largely civilian targets isn't good and should have been avoided."
Yeah, that get's old, try again.
There were so many other ways to handle things. And, if a show of force had been needed, why not drop one on an empty area to start? Or an isolated military base or something? Fucking obliterating an air base would have sent a message too.
Look, it's not even about the nukes, that's kind of a distraction anyway. Nukes exist, and they're a tool. I think nuking civilians is bad, just like I think the nonnuclear atrocities are bad too, from all sides. The firebombing of both Germany and Britain were evil.
I get things spiral in war, but you're taking a chunk out of your own soul when you engage in such actions. Intentionally targeting civilians, intentional starvation, all that...it's bad, and you should just say 'we're not doing that,' even if it's a very effective strategy of war.
I'm just not going to sign off on the bombing - especially the double bombing - of Japan.
WW2 was a fucking dumpster fire from the start, and everyone had plenty of offramps.
Talk like "chunk of your soul" wank sounds nice and flowery when you're nowhere near any actual fighting, but if you asked any of the teenage marines who had to fight in Iwojima or Okinawa or any other useless battle when the war was already clearly over they'd probably say "fuck that nuke em again".
Yes! Except the battles weren't "useless" they were required to set up the invasion of the Home Islands.
Aside from liberating the Philippines, THAT was useless! McArthur had deserted his troops in disgrace & it was his vanity alone that required the Philippines to be liberated.
Every Allied soldier looking into the meatgrinder of Operation Olympic would gladly keep dropping atom bombs until the cows came home.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
And they gave them forewarning.
'BUt tHey're cIVilIaN tArGetS' is just leftist historical revisionism in action.
Almost the entirety of Nagasaki casualties were civilian, and combined with Hiroshima it was still about 95%, last I heard. Those aren't acceptable numbers.
Or, you know, fact...
Most of the anti-Nuclear propaganda is literally just left-over Soviet propaganda.
Because a show of force means nothing. Hell, Hiroshima by itself had no real effect on Japanese plans to continue the war. Nagasaki, and the possibility of more nuclear strikes is what helped end it.
Socialists of every variety are hard headed. That's why you see them support their rapists or killers. The ideology is too strong. The level of violence needed to dissuade a Leftist from attacking has to be so extreme, and so disproportionate, that a moral person would wince at the thought. And that level of violence would never make a single Leftist do anything but giggle.
It's a real problem.
Don't forget Japan. Curtis LeMay killed 150,000 people in a single night.
Yeah, but who wanted to take them? Kaiser Wilhelm yelling from his mansion? Some die-hard Warren G. Harding supporters? Some left-over Huey Long supporters? Some dude sitting in a US prison because he didn't turn in his gold coins in 1935? Friedrich Hayek? Everyone in Denmark?
Nobody in power really wanted peace. Everyone in power either wanted Peace, or Socialism, which meant they didn't want peace. This includes people like the Labour Party of Britain. Each elite saw an opportunity to exploit.
It would have been 3 bombs on Japan, but they ran out of plutonium for Skinny Man.
I said in another comment: the use of the Bombs was discussed in depth. The reason they couldn't "demonstrate it" was because they only had 2 bombs until April '46. If their bluff failed? Then it was Operation Olympic time and the millions of deaths from just that invasion.
The post-war analysis of Olympic was: the Allies underestimated Japan's defenses by half: they were much stronger than the wildest imagination and Allied losses would have easily been double the already horrific estimates.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians is bad, but millions is worse, ok?
As it was, it was a bluff! There were no more Bombs to drop. A weaker bluff would have failed, it was literally 50-50 as it was.
Well when you realize that women or feminized men are writing these articles and arguing these points, it becomes more clear.
The lives of the military men matter not to them. The civilians will always matter more because of the women and (lesser so) the children amongst them.
They don't like the idea of dropping bombs on civilians because they get scared of the idea that they may actually be involved in the death and destruction that they're happy to support and vote for.
Much like how they love supporting trannies until you suggest they fuck one or that they are one.