Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States’ legitimate military objectives.

    • dom@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      68 civilians died in pearl harbor.

      140,000 died in Hiroshima.

      I wouldn’t call that in proportion.

      I upvoted you because I vehemently disagree with your opinion. It’s kind of skirting the line on being straight up evil

    • lukzak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.

      Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?

      • NormalC@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        No cause if we invaded japan how would we scare the soviet union?!! Those japanese children whose entire families were burnt to a crisp in nuclear holocaust were needed in order to scare big bad communism

        Wait, what do you mean the soviets stole the nuclear secrets from us?!! What what do you mean that France figured out the creation of nuclear weapons all on their own?? The freakin zionists have them too?!!!

        Dw, this isn’t an unpopular opinion, OP is just the most intelligent democrat voter

      • Parsnip8904@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn’t a decision that I find ethical in any way.

      • HumbertTetere@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The imminent threat of an invasion (assembled in staging area and ready to go) could have been tried before. It would have been very costly, but would have been necessary anyway for an actual invasion if the nuclear bombs didn’t cause a surrender (there was a coup attempt to prevent it, so it was never a sure thing even with the bombs).

    • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It did less damage than the firebombings and in the end probably took less life than prolonged war, the first was absolutely justified. The second is debatable.