Can the use of nukes on civilians ever be justified?

Innocence and guilt is a social construct. The same person could be considered innocent and guilty by different criteria.

>Noncombatant just keeping your head down and doing what you need to survive a horrible period?
Innocent.

>Someone who is doing nothing to anonymously resist a guilty regime?
Guilt by association.

>Someone who is actively engaging in the system that supports the atrocities committed by said regime?
Guilty.

All these could apply to the same person, for instance a factory worker in Hiroshima. They only vary by a single metric too, the expected level of civic engagement. Multiply that by all aspects of social values, and you will find dozens of ways to implicate guilt in a person, or cast them as innocent.

yes

Attached: __c-mecca-rtx3dw1g-suhaib-salem.jpg (600x600, 121K)

The 'ends don't justify the means' argument works but only if you declare that all wars are unjust. As said it is just used to justify actions in practice rather than function as a guiding principle and that all parties are guilty, to dome degree, in warfare.

The only way to win is not to play

I'd rather not die a horrible death on kyushu cuz some jap motherfucker is too autistic to sign a damn surrender document

Someone doing nothing to resist a guilty regime is not actively trying to kill anyone and probably only wants to survive, knowing that if he does anything he and his whole family will most likely pay for it with their lives.

Not actively trying to cause harm to others = Innocent.

You can bet that many of the japanese citizens that were incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki also didn't want to die horrible deaths, didn't participate in the war and didn't support it, and the ones that did support it were brainwashed by the cult of their emperor.

>You can bet that many of the japanese citizens that were incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki also didn't want to die horrible deaths, didn't participate in the war and didn't support it, and the ones that did support it were brainwashed by the cult of their emperor.
I'll take 180k deaths over 500k+ any day of the week

What a stupid and shitty rationalization for mass murdering of innocents.

When the innocents are american

Is 180,000 less than or greater than 500,000?

All discussions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki inevitably come down to this.

Attached: trolly.jpg (645x429, 27K)

>Not actively trying to cause harm to others = Innocent.
Or guilty by negligence. Guilty by association. Guilty by inaction. There are many concepts of guilt that don't require deliberate, active participation.

People always make it sound like the nukes or the invasion were the only options available, but why not just propose more agreeable terms of surrender to end the war immediately without further casualties?
If all you care about is reducing casualties, this should be the most reasonable decision to you.

Boone’s saying killing those people is morally correct. But due to the circumstances we can agree that it was the correct action. The emperor was a god in the eyes of the Japanese and they would’ve all died until he surrendered. Not to mention this had already been a 5 year long world war, nuking an enemy nation to end the thing probably seemed like an apt decision and rational decision. You can’t book a situation down to statistics and one number being greater or less than another, you have to look at the time, place and circumstances of the event

Except you don't see the one person, because they are part of an outgroup that's physically separated from your own society and culture. So like that, but with a few thousand extra kilometres of train tracks between the lever and the guy.

Just makes the choice that much easier, really. PULL THE LEVER!!

Half measures were what led to the second world war in the first place. Unconditional surrender are the only agreeable terms.

I agree. Pull that bitch.

So you're saying every war should be fought until one side surrenders unconditionally, otherwise it wouldn't be just?

No? I'm saying that in this particular situation, the ending of a war with an extremely dangerous expansionist foreign power with significant radical elements necessitated unconditional surrender to avoid the problems of the half measures of the first world war.

>Pig woman.

Attached: 200px-Le_56_Face.png (200x164, 44K)

why not ?

Attached: bradford-burglary-gang-jailed-for-total-of-16-years.jpg (1000x700, 106K)

whiter than you etc

too many ugly people in the world lets drago take care of them

Attached: Ivandrago.jpg (546x794, 56K)

Did you know that dolph has a masters degree?

Then why not just propose terms of surrender that would've removed these expansionist, radical elements? It's not like a conditional surrender would have automatically meant the enemy government gets off scot-free.

yea

Attached: 1520923150863.jpg (1434x1797, 252K)

>Then why not just propose terms of surrender that would've removed these expansionist, radical elements?
Those quite literally were the terms presented.

wrong pic

Attached: shutterstock_528939823-650x360.jpg (650x360, 38K)

In chemical engineering no less, then got an offer for a PhD programme at MIT and had to choose between that and becoming an actor/model.

Good thing he turned down the PhD in chem eng tbqh, higher education for chem engs is a meme unless you're teaching
t. chem eng

Yes, shortly before dropping the nukes, leaving neither side the time to come to an agreement.

What more was their to say? The only "agreement" that they could come to was japan agreeing to the terms that the americans felt wouldn't result in their sons going off to a third world war twenty years from then. They refused to sign, even after repeated calls for surrender for months before the final demand. There was nothing more that could be said, and it was unlikely that the leadership of Imperial Japan would change course if they hadn't already. Every minute that passes with japan still fighting, more chinese, americans, brits, australians and indians die, time is limited.

The US were fully aware that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan on August 9. There was no reason for them to believe this declaration of war wouldn't have a significant effect on Japan's stance on the terms of surrender regardless of the nukes, thus reassessing the situation then would've been totally reasonable when the alternative was the death of 180k/500k people.

Yes, they were aware that the stalin was coming to party on the ninth, which is why they dropped the bombs close to that date in order to deliver three gut punches at once.
Also, i remind you again that time was of the essence.

Then why deliver three punches when there was a good chance one would've been enough? By the way, there was no major fighting going on between the US and Japan at the time, so the US wasn't pressured to take immediate action in regards to preventing casualties.

>Then why deliver three punches when there was a good chance one would've been enough?
Who said one would be enough? You? Do you have any evidence to back that up without resorting to hindsight?
>no major fighting between the US and japan at the time
American forces were still engaged with Japanese soldiers in the mountainous areas of the Phillipines, and US allies were still locked in combat with Japanese forces all across the Pacific.

>Who said one would be enough?
Nobody knew, and that's exactly my point: As far as I am concerned, both of the very unfavorable options (nukes/invasion) are unjustified as long as a third option exists that hasn't been properly assessed yet, but could be assessed relatively easily and has a realistic chance of being far better than both other options.

Why not both?

>dude just wait and see lmao
Remember what I said about no more half measures with an enemy that thought starting a war with a nation with 10x their GDP was a good idea? Why take a single chance when tens of thousands are dying per month because of some autistic militarists on a tint island in the pacific? Who said it even had a realistic chance of them just capitulating with russian entry into the war? It was properly assessed, they felt that the bombs were also needed.

Just win the war, dumdum. Nobody can try you for war crimes if you set up the courts

No one can try you for war crimes anyways if, legally speaking, what you did was not a war crime.

Attached: 1494870199175.png (346x427, 251K)

Air warfare was not covered in the geneva conventions at that point in time, anything dropped out of a plane short of poison gas was fair game.

I'm not talking about aif warfare specifically, just pointing out that
>No one can try you for war crimes anyways if, legally speaking, what you did was not a war crime
is a bit naive

>he doesn't know about Korean tunnel octopi

Even with the benefit of hindsight, there are still many historians who say it's possible that the Soviet entry into the war was what ultimately led to the surrender. The people at the time in the final days of the war had no way of knowing how significant the effect of the Soviet invasion would be. Therefore it was worth waiting for it in order to reassess the situation afterwards. Remember, we're talking about delaying action for half a week here, not months or years.

>showing week-ness in the face of the enemy
That's a court marshalling!

>Even with the benefit of hindsight, there are still many historians who say it's possible that the Soviet entry into the war was what ultimately led to the surrender.
There's your problem. Hindsight. They calculated that russian entry into the war wouldn't be enough to propel them to surrender on their own, in which case they would have sat on their asses twiddling their thumbs while more of their and their allies men died in a war they didn't choose but were forced into. Why take the chance that the invasion alone will precipitate surrender? Why wouldn't you try and maximize the shock as much as possible to avoid the awful possibility of operation downfall? Because you think there *might* be a possibility that reds crossing the border will get Japan to throw in the towel? Are you going to tell that to your draftees who are getting shot at and malaria by the hundreds, men who just want to go home? Are you going to tell the chinese villagers "we'll go easy on them. Trust me, it'll all work out" while they get bayonetted? Are you gonna tell the aussies that they have to stay in their jungle hellhole of a theatre they've been in for the past four years a bit longer because some fuck in a kimono is being a little bratty, but maybe he'll play nice if we just give him some time? No, you pursue all the options available to you to bring your enemy to his knees as quickly as possible to end the war once and for all. You don't pull punches, you don't go for half measures, you just try and end the goddamn war.

You're misunderstanding, the hindsight I mentioned is one that would support your argument. But at the time they didn't have that hindsight, ergo they didn't know whether the Soviet invasion would make enough of a difference to lead to a diplomatic solution, but they had many reasons to believe it would. I'm saying that neither of the two other options can be justified because there always was a reasonable possibility to solve the conflict through diplomatic means.

>I'm saying that neither of the two other options can be justified because there always was a reasonable possibility to solve the conflict through diplomatic means.
This is agreeable to a point. Too bad the Japanese state in the onset of WW2 didn’t try this method with the numerous sovereign nations that they invaded and attacked.

yes citizens are potential manpower for conscription by the ennemy, there also the main war material producers for the ennemy. in a war all ennemy infrastructure and rescources are viable targets

Why do you consider vaporizing instantly to be worse than suffocating in a collapsed shelter in a conventional bomb blitz, choking on WWI sulfur gas, or just starving to death under siege in modern day Syria?

Civilians die in war. That's what makes war something to be avoided.

>Killing of innocents is NEVER justified and right.

source?

So you are saying is better to x10 people more dying in a more horrifying situation, but happening in different occasions the a fraction of them dying instantaneously?

Were did you toke that morality? from your ass?

Even more when we are talking about the killing of your own democratic population, against a population that is indirectly responsible for the war, an arrogant population that were aware of mass killings of Chinese and most of the thought as something right

its always justified
citizens provide tax which helps the war effort
attacking civilians and infastructure is just apart of warfare

>The ends never justify the means, ever.
Yes it does. Just not in scenarios like these.

Yeah, cuz those just outside of the instant vaporization blast radius just get off scott free!

Attached: Y HALO THAR.jpg (1200x702, 141K)

>justified

Attached: 7DxFujX.png (485x443, 21K)

There were Japanese staff discussing continuing the war even after the first bomb dropped and then even after the second-- thus we see an attempted coup on surrender. Japanese command and leadership was a fragmented mess at the time they could not be trusted to agree to American terms of surrender. There absolutely were elements of Japanese brass who were in favor of simply eating the nukes and continuing on. The strategy of Japan at the time was to prolong the war as long as possible to achieve better conditions of surrender. This could very much include eating nukes while sitting on the deterrence that an invasion of the homeland brings.

There is no reason to believe that the Soviet entry into a campaign against the home island would have changed this strategy or Japanese willingness to surrender unconditionally. And, what do ya know, when they surrendered they sorta got to keep their God Emperor anyway.

His sister is better.

Attached: 917086.jpg (750x445, 46K)

That's not real, that's a ghoul from fallout. Nice try Todd.

>do not upset kim no matter what
>do not upset kim no matter what
>do not upset kim no matter what
>do not upset kim no matter what
>dat hairline
>dat jawline
>"""""sister"""""

nuclear weapons are the one of the most horrifying things mankind ever came up with. it's worrying that WWII is kinda vanishing from society's collective memory

Absolutely. End the war as fast as you can, no matter how brutal, and you're doing both sides a favor.

Kim is a stupid gook manlet and I hope he nukes us so we can go in a kick his commie as but he won't cuz he is a pussy. Macarthur was right.

Attached: Macarthor.png (1202x1080, 1.5M)

No, but it will happen again in the future. We've been very fortunate so far to have this 70+ year break from horror. If there's one thing that's true about that species of monkey called humans though, it's that they are violent and tend to escape the cage of civilized behavior.

>There is no reason to believe that the Soviet entry into a campaign against the home island would have changed this strategy or Japanese willingness to surrender unconditionally.
Not against the home islands, but the Soviet campaign against Manchuria did exactly that. Unless the US had nothing but drooling retards for their diplomats at the time, they could have seen from miles away that the Japanese neutrality pact with the Soviets was a huge part of the reason Japan refused to surrender.

That's fucking horrfying, to the point it's disgusting. Also
>That shit understanding of how fallout works

That's a two-front war against both Muslims and Jews