Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.
It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.
Their only condition was that they wanted to keep the Emperor. It was ridiculous of the Allies to demand a wholly conditional surrender. All those people got blown up just to win the argument about that one point. They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city! And then they did it again! That’s not tactical, that’s strategic. If you’re going to use nukes, at least use them on a military base far away from cities.
Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!
My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.
Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?
This isn’t school, kid. This is the internet.
You aren’t a teacher and this comments section isn’t a research paper.
You posed an obnoxious whataboutism, as if the horrifying things America has done to multiple asian countries somehow cancel each other out because one is ‘worse’ than the other despite both being war crimes.
Though as an aside, would you consider firebombing every Japanese city they can get a plane over, for a period of months ‘worse’ than wiping two cities off the map because they wanted to test out their new toy (in the case of little boy, potentially running the risk of it failing to go off and leaving a functional mass of enriched uranium right at the feet of a country they were at war with)?
Would you consider the use of agent orange and napalm ‘worse’ than them say, creating AIDS, or destabilising any nations that were getting a little too successful, any part of the MKultra program, funelling huge quantities of money to a country that has still to this day never signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement?
Would you consider it worse that there are widespread birth defects in multiple arabic countries due to the use of depleted Uranium munitions for so long that the ground became radioactive?
Or would you be willing to stop comparing piss and chocolate for the sake of being neurotic on the internet?
Holy shit I almost took you seriosly. Then I read the part about how “them” created AIDS lmfaoooo
And I thought I was a good shitposter. Whew. I am thoroughly outclassed.
People villify nuclear weapons to ludicrous proportions, and that was kind of my whole point. Would you, as a thinking and feeling person, if given the choice, choose to be instantly annihilated by a nuclear bomb or live to be poisoned over decades? I’d choose to meet the sun, personally, but I’m always astounded how many people think the poison is somehow the lesser of these evils.
Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.
Please show how the nukes are worse.
The Japanese government was already willing to surrender.
It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.
Their only condition was that they wanted to keep the Emperor. It was ridiculous of the Allies to demand a wholly conditional surrender. All those people got blown up just to win the argument about that one point. They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city! And then they did it again! That’s not tactical, that’s strategic. If you’re going to use nukes, at least use them on a military base far away from cities.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41144264/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/longterm-radiationrelated-health-effects-in-a-unique-human-population-lessons-learned-from-the-atomic-bomb-survivors-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/61689AD5A1AA4A684B84DFA4F9E5D1D3
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/bennett1/
https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/hiroshima-nagasaki-health-consequences-icrc-japanese-red-cross_0.pdf
Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!
5/10
And your sources are? Where? Your ass?
My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.
Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?
You can also look it up. It’s not anyone’s job to compare things for you.
Now tell that to your high-school English teacher when they assign you a research project.
You aren’t they.
This isn’t school, kid. This is the internet. You aren’t a teacher and this comments section isn’t a research paper.
You posed an obnoxious whataboutism, as if the horrifying things America has done to multiple asian countries somehow cancel each other out because one is ‘worse’ than the other despite both being war crimes.
Though as an aside, would you consider firebombing every Japanese city they can get a plane over, for a period of months ‘worse’ than wiping two cities off the map because they wanted to test out their new toy (in the case of little boy, potentially running the risk of it failing to go off and leaving a functional mass of enriched uranium right at the feet of a country they were at war with)?
Would you consider the use of agent orange and napalm ‘worse’ than them say, creating AIDS, or destabilising any nations that were getting a little too successful, any part of the MKultra program, funelling huge quantities of money to a country that has still to this day never signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement?
Would you consider it worse that there are widespread birth defects in multiple arabic countries due to the use of depleted Uranium munitions for so long that the ground became radioactive?
Or would you be willing to stop comparing piss and chocolate for the sake of being neurotic on the internet?
Holy shit I almost took you seriosly. Then I read the part about how “them” created AIDS lmfaoooo
And I thought I was a good shitposter. Whew. I am thoroughly outclassed.
People villify nuclear weapons to ludicrous proportions, and that was kind of my whole point. Would you, as a thinking and feeling person, if given the choice, choose to be instantly annihilated by a nuclear bomb or live to be poisoned over decades? I’d choose to meet the sun, personally, but I’m always astounded how many people think the poison is somehow the lesser of these evils.