Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 730 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,209
36,168
136
Leeea said:
Your just being willfully foolish now.

Tell me, how did the Meiji restoration come to be? Oh yes, the previous divine emperor was tossed out. ( forced abdication ). So much for godhood.

How did the Meiji restoration come to an end in 1912? When Crown Prince Yoshihito he proclaimed Taishō era. The population of Japan said screw that shit, and the Taishō political crisis occurred. This in turn triggers a time period known as the Taishō Democracy. So much for your divine emperor.

The Taishō Democracy would be killed off in 1926 by reactionary forces which would empower a military junta. Yep, the Showa era was not particularly divine either, and just used the "divine" emperor has a useful tool to legitimize their government. A bit how the monarchy in Britain legitimizes the British government.


You are the one speaking from ignorance here. Look past the propaganda. Don't let yourself believe racist propaganda that simplifies Japanese people into a bunch of mindless drones blindly obeying their divine god.
Click to expand...


My that's a lot of spittle to not address the famine vs bomb deaths self-own. Grats on discovering wiki Leeea.

Just going to rant huh? Ok.

I'm leaning more "booze" now, btw, I'm sure your passwords are fine.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,021
32,993
136
pmv said:
But... the Japanese fought quite ferociously - and to the death - in defending the Pacific Islands. Why wouldn't it be reasonable for the allies believe the same would be true, on a vastly-larger scale, for any invasion of the Japanese mainland? I don't think it's an unreasonable calculation to weigh the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima against those that would have occured in an invasion.
Click to expand...

Japanese strategy became that if they inflicted severe enough casualties on an attacking force the US would eventually cease attacking and negotiate favorable terms to end hostilities. This was one in a number of very serious miscalculations by the Japanese military leadership. Japanese civilians probably had the most to fear from their own military who would have likely murdered them en mass as traitors if they did not defend the home islands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane and Leeea
L

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,617
5,363
136
kage69 said:
My that's a lot of spittle to not address the famine vs bomb deaths self-own. Grats on discovering wiki Leeea.

Just going to rant huh? Ok.

I'm leaning more "booze" now, btw, I'm sure your passwords are fine.
Click to expand...

I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,308
4,427
136
amenx said:
---

If I were the US, I would offer Putin a sweet deal that would be hard to turn down. Negotiate a quick end to the war and to grant Putin political asylum in the U.S. with a $ billion of his own money. That would include his family and to live free in a secluded and protected place for the rest of his life. The other Russians in the leadership would be thankful for a way out of their predicament esp if it could come to a quick and painless end like this.

Putin would go for it. Because he cares more for his own skin and family than his country.
Click to expand...


So you would reward his crimes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse
L

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,617
5,363
136
pcgeek11 said:
So you would reward his crimes?
Click to expand...
If that plan would work, it would be worth it.

But the plan would never work.


Putin is an expression of Russian society. Kill him, grant him asylum, etc and Putin v2.0 replaces him. Just like Trump. Trump is the expression of a group of people who always existed in US society. Putin is the same for Russia.
 
R

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,382
3,111
146
K1052 said:
It's not racist to say that millions would have died in Ketsu-Go and the onrushing famine in Japan had they not surrendered when they did.

These were not concerns for the US but the timing did end up benefiting the Japanese people as a whole. This is besides the ethical and moral questions of using the weapons.
Click to expand...

My belief is that they primarily surrendered because of the Soviet offensive, their defence on the mainland of Asia had collapsed and they had no likelihood of being able to provide more than a token resistance in Hokkaido to the next Soviet offensive that was coming within weeks probably.
 
Michael

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
Leeea said:
I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
Click to expand...

Nuking Japan was to save American lives.

It also probably net saved Japanese lives, but it was another in a series of naked aggression that I feel is justified considering the total war that was in place at the time, but it certainly was an attack against population centers designed to be so horrific that Japan would surrender without being invaded.

If I went back in time and had to advise the President, I maybe would have said just drop one and see if they capitulate instead of dropping the second bomb.

Otherwise it was a terrible but reasonable choice at the time.

which has nothing to do with Russia in Ukraine as Russia would survive fine if they called a truce and retreated out of Ukraine. Putin probably would not, but Russia would certainly survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba
A

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
3,892
2,103
136
pcgeek11 said:
So you would reward his crimes?
Click to expand...
If it would put an end to further destruction, mayhem, 1000s of casualties, collapsing economies and misery affecting millions and potential nuclear war, sure. Kind of suprised anyone would see that as a deal breaker, lol. If it was an either/or situation, abso-fucking-lutely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,074
12,168
146
Lotta train lever morality discussions going on in here. Also getting to see who prioritizes justice over life, and vice versa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,209
36,168
136
Michael said:
Putin probably would not, but Russia would certainly survive.
Click to expand...

This is true. The war in Ukraine is an existential crisis for Putin's rule. Defeat means he's a goner.

Russia's survival as a federation? Another 10-20 years if I had to guess. Maybe a lot less with Putin dragging out the inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea
biostud

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,237
4,755
136
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas and Leeea
Zorba

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,519
9,895
136
Leeea said:
I already addressed the famine argument several posts back.

I am also out of time.


I think this really is a question of "ends justify the means" arguments. The argument for firebombing Japan and the argument for nuking Japan are essentially the same. If you support one, the same logic supports the other.


On a personal level, I am a fan of "ends justify the means", I think it is the strongest moral argument to be made.


It is just that I reject the idea that the means were necessary with Japan. Both with the firebombing and the nukes. I also reject the argument that it was done to save Japanese lives. Because that is not what was achieved with either action.


The best argument for nuking Japan was to counter the USSR and preserve allied forces for the inevitable face off with the USSR. I am unsure I agree with that, but the idea that nuking Japan was to save Japanese lives is just propaganda. Murdering the largest concentration of people left in the community to save the community level of inanity.
Click to expand...
I've never heard anyone say it was to save Japanese, just that it did. All of WW2 was a horrible mess with many atrocities. The firebombing and nuking we're evil, but may have prevented more suffering in the long run.

I do believe the nukes changed the world, though. Without nukes there would've been more world wars by now. Without the demonstration of their horribleness in Japan, nukes may have been used early in the cold war.

Regardless, just because the US has used them, 80 years ago, doesn't mean the cat is out of the bag and anyone can use them now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom