443
Sen. Lindsey Graham Suggests Nuking Gaza, Calls Hiroshima ‘the Right Decision’
(www.thedailybeast.com)
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 12 May 2024
443 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32083 readers
1012 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The US was never faced with destruction during World War II.
People like Graham are oblivious to the huge opportunity WWII gave us to dominate markets because Europe and Asia had been destroyed. They think it was American Exceptionalism all the way. Their inability to grasp this is why they are ineffective at leading now that other nations have caught up.
Obviously you haven't seen that fine documentary The Man in the High Castle.
Or the one about a post-Trump presidency, The Handmaiden’s Tale
Hey now. The threat of destruction was just as bad as the actual destruction across Europe and Asia.
Americans and clutching at pearls name a better duo lol
Americans and shooting people, both at home and abroad
Americans and clutching at Pearl Harbor
I mean, yes and no. Pearl harbor wasn't the only place hit 12/7. Philipines, Guam and Wake were all hit as well
Hong Kong and Singapore were also attacked and the empire invaded Malaysia.
America took a sharp hit square in the face, but Britain got sent home in a body bag at the end of 1941. By Feb 1942 the UK had lost all of Malaysia, lost Hong Kong and lost Singapore. They lost 12,000 troops, the rest surrendering. Zero soldiers made it home. Out of 120,000. Australia and New Zealand were in extreme danger and the Raj was expecting assault at any moment. I'm the spam of a few months Japan had sunsetted the largest empire the world had ever seen.
America had never been pit against such an enemy. You have to take all of WW2 into that context. Fuck in WW1 they played soccer across no-man's-land on Christmas. The next year the Canadians had arrived and...well...I'm not saying shit about canuckistani military just that over half of the geneva convention exists because of Canada.
None of those put the US at existential threat.
How is loosing territories some 5.000-10.000 km away an "existential threat"? Even if they wanted to, Japan had no means of successfully invading main land US.
The US justifies dropping the Nukes with it preventing an extraordinary loss of life if they had to stage an amphibious invasion of main land Japan. But at least the US could stage much closer to Japan, than Japan could to the US.
In the same wake the Britains loosing their empire was not an existential threat to the US just as much as the genocide against China was not an existential threat for the US just as the Holocaust and the genocides in eastern Europe weren't an existential threat to the US.
Okay good point about the threat WWII Japan posed but you're going too far in the other direction. When asked about going to war with America admiral Yamamoto said what amounts to "this is a bad idea don't". Now part of their failure definitely lies in poor leadership, and I can see the idea that if they'd concentrated on America instead of opening a war on three (two and a half?) fronts they might've made significant gains until America's industry caught up, but they simply didn't have the industrial base to keep the US down. The US also has very good natural defenses that you forgot to take into account. Remember: Their ships and airplanes were all handmade.