this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
285 points (96.4% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6629 readers
736 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago (33 children)

I haven’t seen the film yet so I don’t know if they get into this, but a large number of the scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were working because they were terrified that the Nazis would build a bomb before the Allies. When, for several reasons, that failed to happen, they were relieved that the bomb wouldn’t have to be used. They felt betrayed when it was used against Japan, who were not developing a bomb and who could have been defeated using conventional means.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (7 children)

the argument put forward was that continuing the war (with a possible drawn-out ground invasion of japan) would cost more lives than demonstrating 2 nukes.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Continued firebombing (which absolutely would not have stopped, and would've increased in intensity) alone would have killed far more than the bombs did.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Yes. that was the argument put forward. Similar arguments have been put forward for almost every military and major terrorist action ever taken. People can subscribe to the justifications, or not, as they see fit. The real thing to be cautious about is if you accept such justifications but only when your country is the one making them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but the argument put forward for everyone may not have been acceptable to some working on the project.

It is important to note that the physicists working on the gadget came from diverse backgrounds and had wildly different politics and moralities when coming to decide if they should work on what they saw as a doomsday weapon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why didn’t they send a movie of the bomb to Hirohito with demands?

Of course, they’d killed a lot of our people in really horrific ways, so patience was running thin.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

Because Hirohito was completely shielded from outside communications, and only knew what his top military leaders told him. Specifically the same military leaders who though it would be poetic for the entirety of Japan to die in combat before a single individual surrendered. Nuking 2 cities was the only way for the US to get Hirohito to see the actual consequences of continuing the war

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I always see it posed as "we either nuked Japan or we invaded", but the nukes were absolutely used in preparation for a land invasion. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit into the highly controversial US strategy of strategic bombing Japanese industry prior to a land invasion, and they were not even the most deadly of our strategic bombing campaigns against Japan (the fire bombing of Tokyo was worse). A proper invasion of Japan post introduction of nuclear bombs commanded by one of our most infamously nuke happy commanders, Douglas MacArthur, planned to have US troops marching through the radioactive wasteland formerly known as Japan slaughtering anything that resisted them. It wasn't an either or, we weren't nuking Japan as an alternative to a land invasion, we were nuking them in preparation for a land invasion

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They could have dropped the bombs on the coast or a non populated area as a warning, and act if they didn't surrender though. That's a demonstration, dropping it in a city/town was not, that was a masacre.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They dropped the first one on a city and that didn't get the point across, what would bombing a beach do?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

the plan was always to drop at least 2, to show it was not a one-off trick.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dude they dropped a bomb on a city, and they completely ignored it. In fact, there was an attempted coup by several the generals to kill the other generals who wanted to sue for peace. These were really militant military men.

The Kyūjō incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken) was an attempted military coup d'état in the Empire of Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14–15 August 1945, just before the announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. The coup was attempted by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and many from the Imperial Guard to stop the move to surrender.

They attempted to place Emperor Hirohito under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

So when people argue that the Japanese were willing to surrender without a bomb or a major military conflict, they are completely ignorant about the trajectory of what was actually happening. We're lucky that we didn't have to drop five nukes AND invade. And don't forget, the Russians were going to invade as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that would be very expensive (in terms of materiel) demonstration that, considering 1. japanese mindset at the time and 2. the fact that nobody has been nuked to date, would be probably not effective at all. Today, this works because everyone and their grandma knows that nukes exist and they do work

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Correct plus we fire bombed a lot of Japanese cities including Tokyo and that barely phased the Japanese government and especially the military. Imagine if instead of burning dresden to the ground we burned Berlin and the Germans responded the same as Japan.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This was a time before cell phones, the emperor wouldn't even know that the blast happened.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

The usa looked at Nazis and went "wtf only we get to be like that" and thenattacked nuked Japanese civilians

load more comments (25 replies)