+53 The killing of civilians by atomic bombs cannot be justified on the grounds that it was done to save other civilians. amirite?

by Albertfunk 2 days ago

Not just atom bombs. All ways of killing innocent people are wrong.

by Sea-Emergency 2 days ago

I was about to say, scratch the atomic bombs out of OP's sentence.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

this is the definition of terrorism, killing non combatants

by According-Button-999 2 days ago

No, the definition of terrorism is "The use of, or threat of, violence often against civilians, with the intent of furthering a political, religious or ideological aim."

by Lopsided_Salt 2 days ago

I'd say it fits that

by Anonymous 2 days ago

It fits war crimes, not terrorism

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Yet so human.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Well, obviously flattening cities with nukes is completely unjustifiable. Even as an equal measure retaliation. That said though, the WW2 nuking of two cities wasn't really much worse than the complete levelling of e.g. German cities using conventional weapons.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Historians still debate whether or not the bombings were even necessary for the Empire of Japan to surrender. Personally, I think it's one of the biggest war crimes in history, even considering all factors.

by Fit-Swimming 2 days ago

If my country was losing a war rather decisively and refused to surrender then I would be annoyed at my government, not the attackers, if they dropped a nuke on us. Also we don't really need to justify it by pointing out that fewer Japanese died from being nuked than would have died in a land invasion. Fewer AMERICANS died and that's a perfectly fine reason right there.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Fewer AMERICANS died and that's a perfectly fine reason right there. No, no it is not. Civilians are civilians everywhere, no matter their nationalities. Killing innocent people, many of them children, is not an acceptable trade off. Civilised society does not go around dropping bombs on people who've done absolutely nothing wrong and calling it perfectly fine or reasonable. Only psychopaths think this way because they completely lack the ability for empathy.

by Happy_Bookkeeper_964 2 days ago

Peak Amurica opinion.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

What's the exchange rate again? 1 AMERICAN is worth how many foreigners? I keep forgetting.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

It's not as extreme as Israeli to Palestinian, but it's a similar concept.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Projections estimate that a conventional invasion of Japan would have resulted in about half a million dead American boys, or about 2-3 times as many as died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes. So let's say the rate is 5 American soldiers equal two civilians.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yep. This has always struck me as one of the dumbest hills to die on.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Must be that "all men are created equal" stuff I keep hearing about.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I'm saying people are really good at writing flowery principles on paper, only to then turn around and invent bulletproof justifications for doing horrible things later.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

What did not happen cannot overcome what did happen.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

According to your theory, anything goes as long as it minimizes damage. That's not true.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

That would be a perfect example of the kind of amazing justification I was talking about. Who needs principles when you have numbers and probabilities instead? And for the record, this isn't specifically directed at the US. People all over the world love to present their country and culture as the peak of human civilization only to act like absolute savages as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Depends what colour they are. Unfortunately Japanese people aren't the correct one for Americans to care about.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

In a war? Unlimited.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Does that principle apply universally, then? If, say, the US were to wage a war of aggression against a country that didn't attack them, would those people then be justified in killing as many US civilians as they feel like?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

It's a terrible analogy, but it's like North Vietnam dropping 100,000 tons of TNT bombs on Manhattan to end the Vietnam War quickly. But if that happens, the US will complain forever, won't it?

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

Why is using an atomic bomb so much worse than all the other ways governments have killed civilians?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Crazy idea: We should always condemn the mass slaughter of civilians, regardless of the methods used and what the official justification may be.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Only right answer.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Very much so.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yup. The allies committed war crimes against civilians on an unimaginable scale and cruelty. It's long past due to acknowledge this

by Current-Engineer5674 1 day ago

And also, ackowledging this does not IN ANY WAY mean downplaying the well-documented crimes of the Axis powers. There's more than enough blame to go around. Unfortunately, people would rather be tribal than objective. We have a long way to go.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Cool, so Japan can admit to and apologize for all the slaughter of civilians they were doing.

by cartersarah 1 day ago

tell it to OP.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I think it was because of the sheer quantity, if I remember right it was between 150,000 and 250,000 most of which were civilians just in those two bombs which are crazy numbers. That and the fact that civilian centres were targeted, not military targets.

by AcceptablePipe 1 day ago

We got 25,000 in a few nights in Dresden with regular bombs.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Yeah and that is bad in and of itself, but that doesn't change my point.

by AcceptablePipe 1 day ago

Is your point that is more fair to kill people with smaller bombs?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

look up firebombing of Dresden and of Tokyo etc

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Radiation. Even after surviving, it kills survivors with cancer and leukemia. It's like the fate that befell the firefighters at Chernobyl.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

How about the fate the befell the firefighters in NYC after 9-11? that sucks too.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

That's why weapons that kill people by aftereffects are banned because of cruel. Asbestos is also no longer allowed to be used.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

war is all very civilized these days.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

When you develop a weapon, even the most terrifying one, someone will want to test it.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Americans will go through all the mental gymnastics to preserve their sense of righteousness

by Anonymous 1 day ago

They also not only dropped one they dropped two

by Shyanneemard 1 day ago

I expressed that opinion for people like this. If one of your country's towns were destroyed, and the invaders said that it was a necessary sacrifice because you resisted, you would have no grounds to complain.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

I love how the what if outweighs the mass amount of destruction and tragedy for you. I feel like you should maybe think about if this happened to your family and wonder then if you would be so chill in talking about this matter.

by Shyanneemard 1 day ago

''if this happened to your family '' THis is what im talking to you.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

Several high ranking Generals of the American military heavily objected to the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was conducting informal talks for a conditional surrender where the emperor wouldn't have to abdicate, a condition not offered by the US who wanted unconditional surrender. It was a condition that would later on be allowed, making the affair a pretty big waste of time. The atomic bombings were first and foremost a tech demo to the entire world, especially the soviets. However Japan after the war not only lost but done horrific, much worse things that came to light in China, Korea, and the South Pacific. So not many Japanese officials came to call out the Americans for committing an atrocity because they'd probably be a hypocrite.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I'm assuming you're ignoring the atrocities Japan committed during WWII and the fact they had no intention to surrender? Japanese soldiers literally ate people. But you, oh enlightened one in the safety of 2025, think it was mean to use deathly force to make them cut it out.

by Able_Froyo2202 1 day ago

There was absolutely no logical reason for the US to drop them, since the Japanese were already on the verge of a surrender. They were basically alone against the whole world; why would they continue to fight? The US dropped them solely as a warning to USSR, to show what they could do if we continue to press our (deserved, after having secured the victory, just like after Napoleon) influence in Europe.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Saying they were on the verge of surrender is completely unfounded. At that point they were continuing to refuse surrender, even after the first bomb. Plenty of Japanese scholars have talked about why this was, primarily boiling down to strong cultural beliefs around war and honour

by Anonymous 1 day ago

There is no reason to surrender because of the atomic bomb.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

We hear the term "nuclear war," but we don't hear "incendiary bomb war," do we?

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

I would argue that Germans and Japanese killed far more civilians in their genocides and pogroms than Americans ever did during firebombings.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

That's because schools dont teach what happened to German people AFTER the war, so you dont factor in things like the millions of germans who were killed in anti-german pogroms after the war into your perspective on things

by Current-Engineer5674 1 day ago

The reasoning is sound imo, the people you're talking with are just a little hypocritical. If some number of dead civilians is already a given, I would rather it be less all at once rather than more over time, regardless of the nationality of the civilians.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Unpopular Opinion: Killing innocent civilians is bad! ...uh yeah?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

WW2 history is complex

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Isn't it a numbers thing .. so estimates of landing troops in mainland Japan and taking it were a million lives lost. Dropping 2 bombs and killing 200,000 makes sense

by Realistic_Flower 1 day ago

I don't want to be the one to mention that the projected Japanese civilian death toll from firebombings -- which was plan B -- was way, way higher. Japan refused to surrender. "Refused to surrender" doesn't mean they sat idle while not waving a white flag. It means they continued fighting. Was the US supposed to use the method with the higher civilian death toll? Or were they supposed to do nothing and accept further attrition at the tail end of a long and bloody war where resources are scarce all around, just to indulge Japan's suicidal tendencies in the face of defeat? PS: I'm not American. I'm not even from the Global North.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

"Why is peace always the justification for war?"

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Look into the fire bombing campaign. It was way worse.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

This opinion is really unpopular lol.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

You don't get to complain about how someone ends a fight you started with them. And if Japan wants to complain about their civilians getting killed during a war their civilians wholeheartedly supported, maybe they should try apologizing for (or even just acknowledging) all of the terrible atrocities they committed.

by cartersarah 1 day ago

It's easy to say "war is bad", but what would your response be if your country or your partner's country who you have defensive collective agreement with is invaded? What happened if you have threatened a country to nuclear them if they ever use their nuclear weapon, and then they suddenly use nuclear weapon on your partner's country. Do you go with your promise and attack them back or do you just stand there and be like "welp, they call my bluff"? Your question is inherently flawed because in your hypothetical question, the country is invaded and was peaceful (not the aggressor). Which is very different than in the case of the atomic bombs on Japan If my country suddenly stupidly invade the US or other nuclear power countries. Not the US's fault that they drop nuclear weapon on my country, it would be my country's government's fault.

by Broad_Bookkeeper_406 1 day ago

So you're saying that people don't want to get bombed but are okay with bombing another country thay started a war? Hmm, doesn't sound very strange to me.

by Hayesethyl 1 day ago

What I mean is that people who justify killing civilians cannot complain if the same thing happens to their own country or themselves.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

Of course they can and they definitely will.

by Hayesethyl 1 day ago

That's called a double standard.

by Albertfunk 1 day ago

Any system that uses violence as a form of coercion isn't a valid system. SO pretty much every government is invalid.

by Full-Actuator 1 day ago

it was not done to save other civilian lives. it was done to force a surrender.

by Anonymous 1 day ago