this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
567 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43947 readers
798 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?
The imminent threat of an invasion (assembled in staging area and ready to go) could have been tried before. It would have been very costly, but would have been necessary anyway for an actual invasion if the nuclear bombs didn't cause a surrender (there was a coup attempt to prevent it, so it was never a sure thing even with the bombs).
How could they have made the threat of invasion any more imminent, though?