The claim was that "the bomb probably saved more lives than it killed". Not that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Mutually assured destruction via nuclear warheads is what kept the Cold War cold. Who knows how many people would have died all over the world if the USSR and the USA went into direct armed conflict?

Maybe it'd have been less than the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, though I doubt it. My point is that there's no way of knowing.

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is what propaganda does to s person. U go on forget about the innocent people who were killed needlessly. ONLY imagine how much worse it could be

[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're arguing in bad faith. My entire argument is about the proportion between the people who did die and the people who could have died, so how can anyone make that argument while forgetting one of the two groups and focusing only on the other? A proportion implies both groups.

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No. You're a propaganda mouth piece now without knowing it.

You don't have another group to compare, you are NOT making a comparison. You are speaking only in hypotheticals, NOT comparison at all.

You are not talking about two groups that died. You are talking about a group that was killed, by the USA. You are talking about ONE group.

You are arguing in bad faith, without knowing it.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, buddy. Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Feeling bad about killing a city full of Japanese innocent people who were about to surrender does.

Enjoy the warm feeling of pride in your country's murder.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Oh, did Peru drop any nukes in Japan? That's news to me.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago

This is what I mean