this sort of homophobia isn’t helping.

out of all the queer guys I’m friends with, exactly zero of them have detonated nukes in response to their boyfriends breaking up with them.

so all that’s left is you bashing a piece of shit, not for being a piece of shit, but because he kinda seems gay.

kindly, respectfully, fuck off with this shit.

entire cities filled with children

Matt Gaetz is moving there immediately!

It’s not really propaganda, the Japanese lost their navy and air force. They were basically prepping for Armageddon and they got it, just not how they planned… with fewer US service men dying.

It’s sad but they FAFO.

Gaza should not be nuked.

I’ll even be so bold as to say nobody should be nuked.

Wow I can’t believe mods let antisemitism like this go unchecked!!

The US has already dropped two nukes on South Carolina.

What more do you want?

So he infact is an old man, not a she.

Why are Israeli trolls like this? Someone points out something stupid genocidal Israeli supporters said and then when people get outraged, they pretend they didn’t say it.

How am I supposed to take these Israeli trolls seriously?

Why is it ok for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war, why was it ok for us to do that? I thought it was ok. So Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state.

The journalist didn’t even mention nuclear bombs, Senator Graham brought it up themselves and then suggested it would be ‘ok’ to nuke Gaza if it ends the conflict. Yeah, the article is shit, it’s The Daily Beast… watch the actual interview.

He did not say the specific words “We should nuke Gaza,” but for anyone to read the article or watch the interview and not understand that is exactly what he is suggesting… That person would have to be an utter moron or be arguing in bad faith.

EDIT: Missed a space

She? Lindsey is a dude.

About every reply here is taking the headline at face value. Imagine that.

absolutely not

its also stupid because old country of Israel is gone and making a new colony and calling Israel also isn’t fulfilling a prophecy - its cosplaying. Might as well call your dog “Israel” and say it fulfills the prophecy

Well, if they continue this way, we all may get to know Jesus together pretty soon

They think they’re on the right side of history. It’s 100% deliberate. They never admit they are wrong about anything because the thought is completely foreign to them. Right wing boomers absolutely believe they are 100% in the right on every single issue. They can’t even imagine they aren’t.

you figured out the entire point of nuclear weapons! Congratulations!

Nope. Japan was pretty much done with the war before the U.S. decided to use them as lab rats to their nuclear bomb experiment. They were itching to use said technology with no regard to innocent lives.

I can’t reinforce the idea enough that they believe god is eal and that they can trick a prophecy to being fulfilled by naming a british colony “Israel”.

The biblical Israel is long gone and the current Israel is obviously a different state; you can “fulfill the prophecies” the same way by naming your dog “the kingdom of Israel”

I bet they would be off the rails no matter of the literature choices

I cannot for the life of me figure out why, if you believe in Christian Mythology, even to the point of wanting Judgement Day to come during your lifetime, why you would personally take efforts that you know are going to end in mass civilian deaths.

Assuming you are right and Judgement Day is on the horizon, are you not damning yourself to the deepest pits of Hell by spending your time leading up to the Rapture ordering the slaughter of innocent people, rather than say glorifying and spreading the word of God?

I don’t believe in any of it, but if I did, I sure wouldn’t be advocating for mass-murder right before God shows up to judge me for the way I lived my life on Earth.

deleted by creator

Back in HS, I think I was told that it was a regrettable ending and we probably went a bit overboard.

It depends whether you think killing 200,000+ civilians is a defensible act.

300,000+ if you include the bombing of Tokyo.

Nobody knows how a conventional war would have played out. To assert civilian deaths would have been higher is pure speculation and a gross attempt to justify the slaughter of noncombatants.

Though it is likely that even without nukes, the US would have still razed these cities with conventional munitions, given the events in Tokyo.

My understanding is that even after Hiroshima, the Imperial Army attempted a coup to avoid surrender.

The Japanese were not stopping. The only alternative at hand was a full invasion, which would have killed many, many more.

I highly recommend this video from Shaun on the matter. It’s long but you can listen to it instead of watching it and you won’t miss much. Excellent video on this subject that really put a lot of the propaganda around the bombing in a new light.

Modern commentary on the use of nuclear weapons on Japan mostly conclude it was not necessary and that a full scale invasion would not have been necessary to force a full surrender.

What I find fascinating is how hyper focused everyone became on the nuclear bombs due to the spectacular nature of the technology, whereas things like the firebombing of Tokyo are discussed far less.

“The raids that were conducted by the U.S. military on the night of 9–10 March 1945, codenamed Operation Meetinghouse, are the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) of central Tokyo was destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1] The atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, by comparison, resulted in the immediate death of an estimated 70,000 to 150,000 people.”

deleted by creator

There is a book I liked about this, it is about Allied civilian bombing in WWII in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Among_the_Dead_Cities

It’s by the philosopher A.C. Grayling, needless to say ‘Responses were divided.’

I’m not super well read on the subject, but is that not true? Or, if it is true, does it not matter?

The issue is that unconditional support of past American actions is no longer acceptable, and so all America’s past actions are being re-evaluated. This is good! However, this also often results in people simply taking the reverse position than the accepted one. This is bad.

The atomic bombings were less bloody than a blockade or an invasion would have been, and the people who claim the Soviet Union was going to successfully invade the home islands or that Japan was about to surrender under any terms that would have been considered reasonable, pinky-promise, are just misinformed or deluded.

There’s also the possibility that because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons have never since been used. What would cold war been like in that case?

Some disclaimers

I am a 50+ year old American

Up until 10ish years ago I had at least a better than average understanding/knowledge of WWII

My ex’s grandmother’s family was from Hiroshima and they had family members killed in the bombing.

All that said as tragic as they were I still think those bombs were the correct military decision at that time. I would be willing to have a rational conversation about it though.

The situation in Gaza is completely different and Lindsey Graham and the rest of the GOP are fucking ghouls.

The cognitive dissonance is fascinating. The Hammas attack on 10/7 is all but universally condemned in public discourse because civillians were targeted. Even die-hard militant anti-Zionists will not attempt to justify the Hammas attacks because they know it will only turn the public against them. When a brown force attacks civillians, it is terrorism and reviled.

Here on lemmy.world condemnation of Israel’s indiscriminant bombing is also prevalent. Maybe 5%-10% of commenters support Israel’s conduct. But of the at least eight people who have expressed an opinion on nuking Japan here in this thread, roughly 75% of them defend it as justifiable and no one has outright said it was wrong.

There are over 100,000 American WWII veterans alive today. They saved the world from the Nazis. We love that for us. Coming out of WWII, we dove right into the cold war. We were battling the USSR for the hearts and minds of the globe. McCarthyism silenced internal criticism. We had no patience for second-guessing our actions in WWII. It was our patriotic duty to convince the world that ours was the side of freedom, democracy, and justice.

So for 80 years now our culture has been saturated with propaganda promoting our glorious, righteous role in WWII. You, your parents, and your parents’ parents have been told the same thing in school and have seen the same messages in TV, books, and movies. And I’m not saying it’s all a lie. Sure, the defeat of Hitler was a high point in American history. But our understanding of our role lacks any nuance or self-criticism. For example, the Russian front was arguably more crucial to the fall of Germany than the Western front. Churchill is hailed as a hero, but he was an antisemetic racist. E.g.:

WINSTON CHURCHILL published a newspaper article. It was February 8, 1920. Churchill had a different enemy now. Now his enemy wasn’t Germany, it was the “sinister confederacy” of international Jewry.

“This movement among the Jews is not new,” Churchill said. It was a “world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” He listed Marx, Trotsky, Béla Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman as some of the malefactors. The conspiracy had been, he said, the “mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century.” It had played a recognizable part in the French Revolution. All loyal Jews, he advised, must “vindicate the honour of the Jewish name” by rejecting international bolshevism.

And:

“I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury on them,” Churchill wrote Trenchard. Churchill was an expert on the effects of mustard gas—he knew that it could blind and kill, especially children and infants. Gas spreads a “lively terror,” he pointed out in an earlier memo; he didn’t understand the prevailing squeamishness about its use: “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” Most of those gassed wouldn’t have “serious permanent effects,” he said.

Churchill’s War Cabinet ignored the repeated pleas of the British colonial government in India for food aid, allowing between one and four million people to die of hunger in 1943 and 1944.

Churchill was a horrible person.

And likewise, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unconscionable acts of evil. It is never acceptable to target civillian populations. It wasn’t acceptable on 9/11/2001 or 10/7/2023 when brown Arabs did it, and it wasn’t acceptable when white Americans did it either.

This is obvious to anyone who wasn’t raised inside the Western bubble.

Democrats love being as homophobic as possible to stick it to a Republican.