• Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    The truth is we can’t know for sure. There’s no way to look into an alternative timeline to see what the Cold War would have been like without nukes as deterrents.

    @Zirconium said “probably” and you flat out called it a lie, so you’re more wrong than they are.

    • AlexisLuna@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Japan was already seeking surrender even before the first bomb. They were ready for almost unconditional surrender, with their only condition being immunity for the emperor. The USA wanted full unconditional surrender and also to keep USSR from the negotiations, so they dropped the bomb. Then they dropped the second bomb, even though Japan tried to surrender again after the first one. I would say this counts as a lie when people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way necessary to bomb. The war was won at that point.

      • Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.