Silver Cat
Gold Member
They were not statists, you know.Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?
By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.
I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.
Third grade logic.
Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.
More ignorance.
It's not "ignorance". "Pax Americana" is really much better than any possible variation of "Pax Sinica", "Pax Japonica" or "Pax Sovetica".