[chrysler]

  - Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
  - Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.

Which option do you prefer?

There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?

[objektif]

Wow were you able to see the future? There is a name for what you are saying but I do not remember what it is called false dichotomy? - Option 1: Kill 200k. - Option 2: Do not kill 200k

Which one do you choose?

[chrysler]

That's where you go wrong - you see the nuclear bombing of Japan as an isolated event. Place it into the context of several hundred thousand people dying every month as it was at the time, and it will look different.

[PleasureBot]

It feels very strange to read the level of willful ignorance displayed by objektif on hackernews. To ignore the context that the Pacific theater was 4.5 years of the most brutal fighting of the war, a mountain of experience demonstrating the Japanese resolve to never surrender, and the looming land invasion of Japan that at the time was predicted to likely kill 1,000,000+ US soldiers and many times more Japanese civilians is so disconnected from reality.

I would also argue that the use of those bombs saved many more lives by teaching the world a lesson about the horror of nuclear weapons. Its very possible that nuclear weapons would have been used in future conflicts when they would have been much more prevalent had it not been for the example set in WWII.

[objektif]

Another prediction from a genius forecaster. This post reads like illogic 101. How do you teach someone horrors of Nuclear weapon by nuking a city?

[lazide]

If no one ever even dies from a weapon, how would you expect them to even believe it was real? Let alone horrible?

Japan didn’t even surrender after the first one! It took two to convince them it wasn’t a one-time fluke and that it was real and could be repeated.

[objektif]

May be blow it up on the Ocean next to them?