Do the millions of people born into a peaceful and prosperous nation since then count?
Donāt you feel that was a ridiculous comment. Japan had no idea how many more A-bombs that the USA could have dropped on them. If they built two, they could surely build many more. Only a double digit IQ leader would subject their country to that level of devastation. Nope. Not a chance would Japan continue to fight.
As to nuclear weapons today, sane minds have determined a countryās BEST outcome of a nuclear war would be mutual destruction.
I donāt see this as a sustainable argument.
Let me phrase it again. We donāt know what would have been enough to force Japan to surrender. Maybe the knowledge that this would happen would be enough. A warning, strike to military base etc.? That card shoul have been probably played first. Now it was two huge strikes to civilian targets.
But this case is not simple. It has been debated for decades by scholars. Strongest arguments for it are that it clearly had a role in ending the war.
Critics say that less would have been sufficient, and some even claim that Japan would have surrendered soon anyway, since Soviet Union declared war to Japan at the same time and they feared Soviet occupation.
Unless you use it against an opponent who does not have nuclear weapons (such as Hamas). So there are other reasons not to use them besides M.A.D.
Iām not saying this is true or anything however I think it is definitely possible that there a method a particular system can use to eliminate someone and cause a bunch of confusion.
Again, Iām not saying this is truth, but I have no reason to doubt that the particular system knows people will just be laughed at and nothing can be done to claim ātwo shootersā once again, so why notā¦ā¦ā¦.
But: both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designated military targets due to their roles as significant military headquarters, logistics centers, and industrial hubs, though the bombings also devastated civilian populations. Hiroshima housed the headquarters for the Japanese 2nd Army and served as a communications and troop assembly center. Nagasaki was a crucial center for shipbuilding and military material manufacturing, including two major weapons plants
But: was a nuclear bomb needed for destroying the military targets? Or for winning the war?
Itās still open for debate how needed the nukes weāre for ending the war, and how much lives they saved compared to how many they destroyed.
I recognise the difficulty with this question. And itās definitely a borderline case if it was a war crime or not. Not even sure how war crimes weāre even defined at that point.
Thereās also the point that not even US might have been sure how devastating muclear weapons would be. There are reasons why Little Boy and Fat Man have been only large scale bombs used in war.
An additional thought: Had the A-bomb not been used against Japan when it was and for an effort to end a war against a country that brutally launched a surprise attack on the waking hours of December 7th 1941, then at a later date some country might have ātriedā an A-bomb to end a minor conflict. The world now knew the vast devastation the A-bomb could inflict.
Also, keep in mind that until September 11, 2001, December 7, 1941 was the most solemn day in the USA. That is 60 years of solemn recognition. Honor was an extremely high value in the USA, at least up until the Vietnam War. āWe didnāt start the war. We didnāt want a war. But you can bet that we are going to end the war!ā (That quote is my paraphrase of the sentiment of the USA at the time of attack on Pearl Harbor.)
Probably. Hypotetical scenarios rarely justify this kind of actions though. I do fear itās very likely that a-bomb will be used in some day in future.
I understand this. Hate, bitterness and revenge are present in all wars. Nazis, Japanese or Hamas have done terrible things. Itās understandable they are/were hated. Many Eastern Europeans still have deep hatred towards Russians because of Soviet occupation and all the atrocities theyāve done.
But while hatred and revenge makes rough actions and war crimes understandable, it does not make them right. Specially when the consequences often hit people not responsible for the war. I assume we can all say that children in Hiroshima or Gaza did not deserve to die.
Remember the USA did not start this war. And I know that none of the Japanese children are responsible for starting the war.
IMO, the offended has the liberty to stop the offender as quickly as possible. I assure you that the value of American children was held in much higher regard than the value of the offenderās children. The USA felt that the quickest way end the number of fatherless children was the āendā that justified the use of the A-bomb. Once again āhonorā was much stronger than anyone 60 years old or younger today can believe. Back in the day when a manās word was as good as a solid contract. Those days are impossible for most everyone on this forum to appreciate.
An honorable man places his ability to support his family above almost everything.
2 Likes
This is a valid point. I would add that also with minimum collateral damage as possible. How much the a-bomb shortened the war is still open for debate.
But I need to go now. Thanks. I felt we actually made good discussion about this, even if we might disagree on certain subjects.
So Disney lost 4 billon, and Kimmel is back on the air tomorrow.
1 Like
Unfortunately, heās still Kimmel.
I donāt think he has much more time on there.
1 Like
Maybe this will help his ratings for a few days?
Hopefully, if this goes on it will continue as a fun rivalry, and not a ruthless vendetta.
It will be interesting to see how many stations continue to preempt the show.
1 Like
Disney (allegedly) lost money when Kimmel supporters boycotted.
It will also be interesting to see if Kimmel detractors boycott andbif Disney loses twice.
Back when late night was good.
Interesting echos too.
Funny tidbit- I missed this episode because I was in a coma after the drano incident.
Correct. IMHO why the WW2 generation was our finest.
Well actually one of the major station owners of 38 stations says they will still not air him.
1 Like
Iām fine with him being off the air - I donāt watch him because heās annoying and not funny.
I just donāt like the knee-jerk capitulation to a threat, not even an action, by the government.
1 Like
Yeah i get thatā¦. In reality from how I took it. IT Was a way for the network to orginal get rid of Deadweight. Since they were losing money off of the actual program.
Now the big question is the supposed billion plus in lost revenue had to do with letting him go or back lash for running his pie hole on the subject?