Not giving a hostile power control of 20% of the world's grain supply is a good one.

Demonstration of American commitment to stopping its enemies worldwide is always handy.

Weakening of a major geopolitical enemy's military capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a conventional war.

That's just off the top of my head, though.

Lately?

"If you violate the Geneva Convention, your people don't get the protections of it" seems like a pretty reasonable way to justify the bombings tbh

In any case, there are some important considerations to be made here too:

After the horrors of Okinawa, US leadership expected a million casualties to take Japan itself, to the point where the Navy wanted to simply blockade Japan into submission. Given the Japanese civilians were already eating acorns and tree bark, and the military's entire outward appearance was to never surrender, it isn't unreasonable to assume Japan wouldn't have given up.

Of course, the Japanese were refusing to surrender to the US in order to surrender through the USSR in hopes of getting a better deal (protect the emperor, no war crime trials, etc.). Of course, the Soviets invaded Manchuria and dashed all hopes of that, which, according to many people, was the real reason for Japan's surrender.

It is a bit murky, but in response to the bombings and the invasion, there was a meeting on August 9th of the highest ranks of the Japanese government where it was determined that surrender was the only option and plans were drawn up to do so. However, on the 14th, there was an attempted coup by some army officers to continue the war, which failed after several high ranking officials refused to comply, among other things.

All of this taken together is not to say "the bombings were necessary," but rather to show the situation as it developed, and how many different things could have gone wrong and dragged the war on for longer (side note: Japan still held a lot of territory and there were plans to liquidate POWs and the like in the event of surrender)

Was it right to vaporize thousands? In a vacuum, no, certainly not. But in the complex context of a war in which millions had already died and millions more still very well could have, its tough to say.

Yeah, I hate that I have to compromise on things, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather have more rights and have to watch Palestinians die than have fewer rights and have to watch Palestinians die.

Its a fucked situation anyway you slice it, but there it is.

It's pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.

We can't simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.

It's a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.

Something something Steisand effect...

Wha? They talked to Apollo's dev at the end?

Or do you mean a breakdown of the numbers and such?

My parents discussed getting divorced if it would help with my eligibility for loans/assistance. We ultimately determined it wouldn't be a net gain in enough ways to justify the negatives, but it is still fucked they seriously considered it as a viable option.

White hot take: All the "leftists" talking about how NATO shouldn't exist and is evil are the same morons who think Americans shouldn't vote for Biden on the grounds of him "not being left enough."

Like, yeah, NATO shouldn't have to exist, but we see what happens when smaller countries don't work together when near a larger/hostile neighbor. Same deal with voting for the (shitty) Democrats over Republicans: we know what happens when shitty people get into power, and it is painfully obvious they will do ANYTHING to keep power once in.

Sometimes, the best we can do is "stop things from getting shittier" instead of "making things less shitty."

Just remember that low unemployment often means severe "underemployment" as people with degrees and other qualifications are forced to take jobs that pay significantly less.

Man's going on a spirit journey with a coyote guide after this

Ah...the same old brain dead argument. Right wingers always hide behind "muh free speech" and the like, but fail to mention how their policies actively attempt to strip the rights of others to be free.

In a space that respects free speech, you fundamentally cannot have a party that wishes to restrict free speech for others, as that defeats the point of free speech. Or rather, the concept of "absolute free speech" is utter nonsense on the face of it, as there will always be restrictions on what is and isn't okay to talk about in any human group.

One could easily argue that putting these people into their own little cesshole communities is giving them free speech in their own shitty space. And of course, if you don't like it you are free to leave for their space or simply shut up and play nice with the other kids in the instances you frequent - thats the beauty of the fediverse.