608
What's some really unpopular opinion you have?
(lemmings.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
608 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43771 readers
1757 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.
I'd say this is not an unpopular opinion. It was (and I believe still is) US govt position on these events. It's also wrong
Could you summarize the video?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
68 civilians died in pearl harbor.
140,000 died in Hiroshima.
I wouldn't call that in proportion.
I upvoted you because I vehemently disagree with your opinion. It's kind of skirting the line on being straight up evil
You skipped several million deaths.
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?
Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn't a decision that I find ethical in any way.
The imminent threat of an invasion (assembled in staging area and ready to go) could have been tried before. It would have been very costly, but would have been necessary anyway for an actual invasion if the nuclear bombs didn't cause a surrender (there was a coup attempt to prevent it, so it was never a sure thing even with the bombs).
How could they have made the threat of invasion any more imminent, though?
It is really unpopular in some parts of Lemmy.