• davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s just weird that nuclear bombs came to your mind, but somehow the nuclear annihilation of two civilian cities was less salient to you than uninhabited islands.

    • DickShaney@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fair that the cities were worse, but the islands were not uninhabited. The people there were evacuated (they were told temporarily) and the place they were evacuated to was still within the fallout zone. A lot of people died pretty much immediately and they’re still dealing with increased cancer and birth defects today.

      This was when these weapons were fairly new, and what little information we had about them was not given to the people of these people before they were pressured into allowing their islands to be testing grounds.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The two uses of nuclear weapons in Japan were horrible. It’s been long debated whether or not that choice vs. the invasion planned was the better of two. I won’t get into that.

      What is more horrible is that instead of staying shocked at the potential of nuclear war, humans in every nation that could tried to make more and bigger ones…for defense, of course. And the islands weren’t originally uninhabited, that’s a nice story of forced relocation for the humans. The wildlife, not so much. That was the point of the post, the history of nuclear arms post-Japan is far worse than the first two bombs used.