One can find experts on any side of a complex
& emotional issue.
So merely providing a link isn't an argument.
Just an appeal to authority...of your choosing.
About "necessary"...it depends upon what one values.
Saving lives on our side in a just war of great threat
looked necessary to me.
You & your experts might care more about personal
own emotional reaction to the horror of nuclear bombs
than the lives of USA soldiers. But other experts have
said that the death total would've been higher without
the bombs because invasion was the alternative.
Given that premise, would you still have opposed
deploying the novel weapon, even though more
people would've died?
Nuclear weapons are still with us, & serving a defensive
purpose. Russia has proposed changing that to using
them offensively in pursuit of conquest.
Yet you complain of some people here waving
Confederate flags....which offend many, but kill none.
.....and the argument against applying a "21st-century perspective" cuts both ways: if you don't apply it to the nukes, then we shouldn't apply it to the USSR either.
Are you aware that USSR committed heinous atrocities
during WW2? I don't use that as evidence of Russia's
more pervasive moral depravity because in a war posing
an existential threat as real as the Nazis did, people do
things they wouldn't otherwise. I cut them slack on this.
But I apply it to both, and I further argue that even some contemporary perspectives looked at both as heinous.
I'm sure they do...to you.
I genuinely can't think of a single country where someone could look at another person with a straight face and explain the "why" of nuking two cities and evaporating tens of thousands of civilians—mainly because no country besides the US has done so.
That's because you & the other people you know
never faced the prospect of a drawn out invasion
of Japan. I had friends & relatives who did, so
discussing the bombings with them was more about
pragmatism of minimizing death.
More importantly, I look at which way of ending the
war was the least deadly...& that was nuking them.
Your approach would've meant more deaths for both
USA & Japan. What matters to you is the use of
nuclear bombs...not so much the effects of all
Again, we killed far more Japanese civilians using
firebombing than nuclear bombs, yet you're silent
You then go on to claim that my points are "Russia apologetics"...
Because your posts appear so, albeit based more
on hostility to USA, than on favoring Russia.
This is exactly the kind of achingly American-centric thinking that makes me kinda glad the global influence of the US is significantly declining.
Yours "is exactly the kind of achingly" anti-American thinking
that leads to Russian apologetics, & willingness to allow
Russia to have its way, ie, the enemy of your enemy is
your friend (ie, Russia).
I see great evil in Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine,
& it's threats to go after other countries. I favor countering
that agenda, & this means war in self defense for Ukraine,
with our help. There is no equivalency in USA & Russian
positions on this. Russia long done this, & isn't backing
down. And so I expressed preference for Russia's demise
into different peaceful countries.
When invading Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq as well as dropping two nukes all have a justification because the US did them, who knows what else could be on the table?
You're bringing in wars that I opposed, as though
I support them. No way, Jose.
As for Afghanistan, are you aware that Russia too
invaded that country? So it's a lousy criticism to
level against USA, but not Russia.
And I didn't equate Russia's threats of a nuclear war with anything; you brought those up, not me. Rather, I maintain that Russia and the US are comparable in their sponsorship of foreign dictatorships and their military aggression.
That straw man isn't what I'm addressing.
The picture is far larger than those issues.
Note that Russia invaded Ukraine not on some
mis-guided mission to fix a country or impose
a desired democracy....it's to conquer & take
it to incorporate as part of Russia. It appears
that you equate this with USA misadventures,
entirely ignoring motive.
The rest of your post is more of the same.
Time to agree to disagree.