So was Pearl Harbor. By your logic the Americans should not have reacted the way they did.
That sounds like better writing and good choice for night elf fans than what blizzard is doing now in days.
I mean they shouldn’t have. Nukes are bad. Especially given the “visual marker” for one of them was “the biggest Catholic Church in Japan, hit that”. And it was during mass.
1 Like
So it would have been better to burn them alive when they weren’t at church?
They were the lucky ones… they never felt a thing if they were as close to ground zero as I suspect.
No the US simply should not have ever used Nukes, nor should anyone, as there is nothing that justifies their use under any circumstance, and specifically dropping a Nuke using a religious structure as a military target is especially demonic.
4 Likes
We used nukes for a very good reason. We wanted to scare the pants off of the Russkies… our “allies” against Japan. The idea was that after seeing how we could burn a city with just one bomb that the Soviets would knuckle under and the U.S. through the United Nations would rule the planet under the Pax Americana.
The knuckleheads who thought of this however hadn’t read their Russian history, especially what the Russians were willing to do, to suffer, to defeat Hitler.
1 Like
I want to touch on this because I saw it;
Context is important here. The Japanese were on the cusp of surrendering anyways around the time the strike occured, there were much easier ways to disrupt production anyways.
What was done was needlessly cruel, in a naked display of power to scare the rest of the world with the show that the US had humanity’s extinction in its arsenal. It was solely to flex on the globe.
The bombs dropped on Japan were heinously evil and the work of American propaganda to paint it as anything but.
5 Likes
History is essentially the cruel use of power to obtain an end.
The Americans saw the world as either being dominated by themselves or the Communists, therefore any means of preventing the Communist domino effect was justified. The Russians were similarly paranoid about the West given their history.
But we’ve moved on from the barbarism of the middle ages. We knew better, we knew it was wrong then as much as it was wrong now. My great grandparents gave the same talk then as I just shared now. The world is as only as dark of a place as we make it and we made it very dark by bringing this to the table.
On the same foot; that’s literally just the paranoia of old men and the insanity of a first strike philosophy. Nobody was going to invade them, or bring about the horrors of the second world war on them again. We do have the ability to use diplomacy, but, instead now we’re here in the year 2021, under the constant imminent threat of immediate extinction of all living things on earth by MAD, because it would be too emasculating to just maintain good foreign policy, so we play inbetween games of proxy conflicts and sanctions to attack them without ‘really’ attacking them.
Anything of “means to an end” comes from a place of desperation and neither the Soviet Union or the United States were about to get pushed around. The US has a strong military presence and invading Russia, historically, has been a logistical nightmare. Its size dissuades just about anyone from invading it, and given that they just won against the Germans pretty much on their own front, they proved that they weren’t about to take any attacks lying down.
I can see you’re coming from the point of view of Kissinger (who was also an extremely evil man), where the morality of life is stripped and all that remains is the “realistic” approach of the world, but, this nightmarish situation is a thing of our not-so-distant ancestor’s making. It didn’t have to be this way. This literally only got to this point because of untoward aggression.
2 Likes
No we haven’t. We simply practise the exact same game with different props. We’re no more civilised than the Ancient Romans, we just drive cars and use power tools instead of chariots and slaves.
The stage, trappings, and costumes may change, but the play remains the same.
The world is the way it is because of men like Kissinger and Nixon believe that everyone else is like Kissinger and Nixon.
We’ve never mastered the trick of keeping the keys of power from people like them.
More so it seems like we merely changed the flavor of “barbarism”.
Which would explain the 20+ year war for profit the US has been waging in … half a dozen countries atm. Poor Americans sign up for the military, to kill and die against poor people abroad, so a bunch of sociopaths in boardrooms can run all countries involved into the ground for personal gain. And not a peep from either political party in opposition to this anymore. Seems pretty barbaric to me.
4 Likes
Russia historically has been one of the most invaded countries on the planet, whether it’s from the West, or the Mongols from the East. Read up more on it’s history.
Conversely America has operated from a position of arrogance since the only invasion of American soil took place in the war of 1812, which was also until now the only time the Capitol had been sacked.
1 Like
The barbarism is literally a thing of the US’ own making! Nothing is pushing the US to go out and engage in imperialism! Just nodding our heads and accepting it as “just a fact of life” is the literal insanity that excuses it and allows more of it to happen uncontested!
That’s the core of my point! The US is literally the bad guy here! Yes, other super powers have brought about barbarism in its history, most of the west isn’t clean of it, but in the modern age, it is only this bad because we made it this bad. It didn’t have to be this way. It isn’t a rule of nature, it’s an artificial thing!
And, as you can see from much of Russia’s history, the only invasion that actually had a significant impact was the Mongols.
The Germans, who struck with a lot more strength than the Mongols, failed in the modern year (of the time). Yes the Germans were waging war on other fronts, but they still defeated a very large standing army.
Actually, yes, that leads me to what I was about to say about America, too. America was never in a position of desperation, because of;
-
A considerable naval presence and being separated from the rest of the world by the ocean.
-
A considerable military presence and an armed civilian presence. The only thing that could have possibly toppled America (and, more relevant in the modern year), is America.
The Russians lost 27 million people in the Second World War. I don’t know about you, but I’d call that a “significant impact”.
Russian World War 2 Casualties
I was going to post some pictures of the siege from Leningrad but they’re pretty horiffic and can be seen on the page linked. That kind of event leaves scars for generations.
America had been humiliated and issued a rude wakeup call in the form of Pearl Harbor. The nation had been caught unready for war and the mood was pretty desperate at the time. Chinese-Americans were being beaten up and killed for the crime of being mistaken for “Japs”. Some of the Superman cartoons from the period are graphic examples of how we saw Asians back then.
I probably shouldn’t be encouraging this tangent, but…
America’s overseas troop levels have been continually declining since Vietnam, which itself was a substantial spike that dwarfs the one realized during the wars that followed 9/11. Going forward, it’s increasingly likely that the US isn’t going to care about what happens in much of the world as a result of regression to isolationism.
The reason for this is the end of our strategic drift. After World War II, we set up a global trade order to fight the Soviets. The deal was: we’ll protect the world’s oceans and create global stability, but you have to be on our side. Of course, the cold war ended 30 years ago and increasingly - we don’t have a geopolitical reason to care. We’re energy independent, we’re the least connected to the global trade order - and it was only imposing costs on us anyway.
Or at least, so says Peter Zeihan, whose lectures can be found on Youtube. He’s got a lot of graphs and charts and geopolitical chops to back this up though, so if you get the time - his predictions make for interesting listening.
Trade is more than just energy. We’re totally dependent upon Asian sources for most of our manufacture especially electronics. There are a lot of other things that we’re dependent upon trade to supply.
Peter Zeihan needs to have his head examined.
You don’t have to wave that fact at me. I know full well the casualties and kill counts of the Russians. I would go as far to say that they mostly won WW2 on their own back.
Which leads me to the point of saying; they just slam dunked the Germans who came at them with an extreme amount of strength and while the conflict seemed perilous and even at times suggested that the Germans could have even won, they still prevailed and came out flexing.
This is the same Germany that made the west quake in shock. England’s certainly not going to have the muster to attack Russia, neither France.
So, again, literally, that relations between the two countries’ governments has been so hostile is literally only an artificial creation of their own making. The only people who could have realistically taken the shot did and failed.
And yes, I’m very aware of that too. It mustered the military strength in about two years’ time to hit them. But it wasn’t just defeating Japan. The point I’m trying to make is; those bombs killed mostly civilians. There wasn’t a strategic need. Victory would had been theirs without them anyways. It was literally killing innocent people to scare the rest of the world and puff America’s chest up to make it look big and strong.
It wasn’t logistical. It wasn’t right. It was evil in the most naked form and they knew it as wrong then as we know it today. The future that was born out of it was our own making and strictly artificial.
This is hardly the topic to discuss historical intricacies, people…
1 Like
Three minutes is an awfully short time to evaluate what’s usually a 60 minute presentation - unless you’re an expert in the field?
At any rate, I was referring to the energy independence and the trade as separate concepts. Among developed nations, yes, we are the least connected to the order that we are protecting - and that is not a concept that ends at energy. Zeihan has graphs that demonstrate this fact.