• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 days ago

    Pick me! Pick Me! I have ideas.

    not very good ones, I’m afraid, but I can at least make sure Trump can’t hurt any more kids.

    • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 days ago

      Keeping Trump from harming kids is a very good idea, so you’ve contradicted yourself already - like a true politician!

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        So you want to see Trump in prison, but strapped to a cam show where tips cause various electrodes to, you know, zap him?

        Electrodes in very awkward places?

        Tips go to helping all the people he hates most, of course.

  • xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    And he was so horrified at the results that he created the doctrine of civilian control of nuclear weapons.

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      “The buck stops here”

      Truman had many faults, flaws, and mistakes. But he still ranks as one of our best presidents.

  • Starik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Conservatives have no respect for expertise.

    It’s easy to assume something you have no clue about must be easy and anyone could do it. If you’re dumb and lack imagination, that is. I’d like to nominate a random farmer from Iowa to pilot Harrison Smith’s next plane ride.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      so war crimes allow further crimes? we had no actual need to nuke them. let alone civilians. let alone twice. they were already going toward a surrender. but hey he knew the cold was was next, so to speak, so we might as well vaporize a few civilians to show russia we’re capable?

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago
        1. The targets were chosen for their military value.

        2. Internal US discussions at the time show that the US did not believe Japan was heading towards a surrender, and projected immense casualties from either of the other two options (invasion, blockade) to end the war. For that matter, Japan was not ‘going toward a surrender’ except insofar as their ‘surrender’ offers included “We keep our brutal colonial empire, otherwise we will fight to the end.” Japan was training fucking schoolchildren to become suicide bombers in preparation for a US invasion at that time. That’s not ‘going toward a surrender’.

      • protist@retrofed.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah it seems pretty clear civilian deaths were coming regardless, whether through sustained aerial assault and ground invasion or two nukes. Which choice was less bad is something we can only speculate about

      • Nautalax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        There were way more civilian deaths from the war continuing than from the use of the atom bombs that helped convince the Japanese government to throw in the towel (aside from the parts of it that stubbornly attempted a failed coup to keep the war going, anyway). The Japanese occupation at the time of the atom bombing stretched from eastern China out to Indonesia and was quite brutal to say the least with many millions of civilians killed.