[ SECRET POST #3128 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3128 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[X-Men]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Hayley Atwell]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Infamous]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Tokyo Mew Mew]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Peep Show]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Rhett & Link/Good Mythical Morning]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Brooklyn Nine Nine]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Lava]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Steven Universe]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #447.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Don't explain to me why bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "necessary evil." Don't do it with 9/11 either.

Actually the douchebag who justified 9/11 to me wasn't even kind enough to call it any type of evil. He was straight up about "we brought it on ourselves, we deserved it."

[(Anonymous)]

"Don't explain to me why bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "necessary evil." "

That's always interesting to me because, for my part, I think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are overblown in terms of the massive firebombing campaign that was being conducted (especially considering we had no knowledge of the long-term effects of the radiation).

The Tokyo firebombing, for example, had 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths; roughly 1,000,000 displaced.

So I guess I don't see how the use of nukes is MORE evil in that context.

[(Anonymous)]

There wasn't even any reason for the much talked up invasion, except as a sop to MacArthur's ego because he was upset that Patton got a D-Day and he didn't. Everyone else was content to enforce the blockade and wait for Japan to fall apart because it was completely starved of resources and no longer had a navy or resources to construct one.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know.

For my final year of English class in grade 12, we basically spent half the year reading up on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, although both sides made good points, it isn't nearly as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

An invasion of Japan WAS seriously being considered and even as of 2003, we had 120,000 purple hearts in stock of the 500,000 that were produced in anticipation of mass casualties.

So there most definitely WAS a massive invasion planned.

That and I just think it's really odd to act as though the use of nukes is a special kind of evil compared to firebombing. Basically as many Japanese civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo as Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. Not to mention all the other cities that were firebombed.

In my eyes, it was a terrible act, but by no means "more" evil than anything else done in the war.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes that invasion was driven by the ego of MacArthur, not necessity. All those purple hearts, his victims not the Japanese. It was to be an invasion of choice, and would probably have reinvigorated the war in the Pacific, which was all but over anyway, by giving the Japanese a foe within striking distance again.

[(Anonymous)]

A war crime interrupted a military blunder. Sad, but true.

[(Anonymous)]

ayup

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry but you just keep insisting that it's MacArthur's ego when...a lot of the sources I've read have shown strong evidence of there being legitimate military goals for the invasion.

I also don't understand how you think a blockade is necessarily more moral.

I'd honestly rather be nuked than starved to death. I remember read about the Nazi Siege of Leningrad and finding it to be one of the most horrifying episodes of the war. I certainly don't consider the atomic bombings to be more immoral than that.

[(Anonymous)]

Starvation wasn't the issue with Japan, they could supply their own food and water. What they couldn't do was replace anything that broke. They either surrendered or went back to the 14thC. The military justifications were being cooked up by MacArthur or his supporters, or as hypothetical scenarios for some of them. MacArthur was pushing for an invasion to rival D-Day in Europe. Ultimately the bombs got dropped because it turned out that if an invasion happened, it would have been from the north and led by Russia, same as what happened in Berlin. Let the Soviets take the brunt and the casualties and the rest of the Allies there to show the flag for the folks back home once it happened.

[(Anonymous)]

"They either surrendered or went back to the 14thC."

What makes you think they would surrender?

Leningrad sure as hell didn't, even after the deaths topped 1 million and the people were turning to cannibalism.

Plus, I think you're overestimating Japan's capacity to feed itself. By summer of 1945, Japanese planners doubted that the country could feed itself into next year.

Then, of course, you're ignoring the fact that MacArthur and his supporters were far from the only people who wanted to invade Japan or felt it was necessary.

All this is beside the point, though -- I really don't see how anyone can look at the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and decide that they're an unforgivable evil when the firebombing of Tokyo had already occurred.

[(Anonymous)]

this^^

Especially concerning Japan's inability to feed itself. Part of Japan's justification for colonizing Korea and Manchuria was to have access to agricultural land.

I think that a lot of the reaction to the nuclear bombing is an emotional one. It was a new kind of bomb, so everybody was shocked by the destruction. It was instantaneous and unfamiliar. Also, you have the radiation poisoning for years later, though they didn't know it at the time.
Ultimately though I agree, I don't know if you can really say that /this/ kind of "killing tons of people" is quantifiably worse than /that/ kind. Death by fire is pretty fucking horrible, too.

[(Anonymous)]

Look what we were wearing! Totally asking for it. Nice countries don't go out looking like that.

[(Anonymous)]

Not that the US is a woman just going about her business, the US has legit pissed off a lot of people in a lot of countries, and has a lot of blood on its hands, but that does NOT justify mass slaughter in return.

[(Anonymous)]

The only reason we are allied with the Saudis instead or Iran was because back in the 1980s we were cozying up to Saddam and he hated Iran and traded (at the time) with Saudi Arabia. We're allied with the allies of our enemy against his enemies. How does that even make sense!

[(Anonymous)]

That and Iran took a bunch of our people hostage in the late 70's when the Ayatollah took over.