> I, for one, prefer Lynch's Dune to Villeneuve's. I was very hyped for the latter and left the theater disappointed.

I prefer neither. Lynch's is odd and silly while villeneuve's is just eye candy. Dune should be read. A movie simply isn't going to capture all the emotions, inner dialogues, intrigue, history, etc. I think it's impossible to make a good movie out of Dune without completely reimagining and rewriting it. Dune isn't like a detective story or a horror story where the ending or jump scares are the the payoff. Dune is the culmination of the entire journey. It's greatness lies in the details.

Try it. Read Dune and then watch Dune. Something is off. Something is missing. It's like the difference between a grape drink and a grape flavored juice. The latter is a poor imitation of the former.

> I assume this is what it was like in the World War I & II era watching tanks being developed.

A better analogy would be the airplane as it had dual civilian-military uses like the drone. Whereas a tank is solely a military use vehicle.

But the drone definitely has the ability to change war like the airplane did. Especially drone swarms backed by AI. You could buy 100,000 drones for the price of a single jet fighter. Imagine millions or even billions of drones fighting to take control over a city.

A tank is basically a tractor with a gun attached :)

Exactly this, an important part of the origin of the tank was the tractor made by the Holt company, which today is Caterpillar. The first German and French tanks in WWI were modified Holt tractors, and the unmodified machines saw widespread use for pulling artillery guns.

The reason for Caterpillar pivoting towards construction equipment after WWI is that they had essentially only made military equipment during the war, so their equipment gradually shifted towards larger and heavier machines. When peace came, their products were too heavy to be used as farm equipment, but perfect for construction.

You mean it's like artillery but more expensive and less effective?

Except that the shell can deliver itself through a house window, with no gun noise signature.

I just gave up on the games that didn't work and ditched Windows. There are enough supported great games to last a lifetime, the few that don't aren't enough of a reason to deal with Windows.

That's okay, I can stop dualbooting once win10 is out of support and the hassle will be gone!

Though I've been refunding games that don't run on proton sometimes as well, because dual booting does indeed get annoying! Perhaps, if missing out on the Deck userbase isn't a motivator enough, we can add some more lost revenue to the motivators convincing devs to use cross-platform or ideally linux-native environments.

Or I'll just stop gaming. Parasite publishers have ruined most of the fun I get from video games the past decade or so, and their product certainly isn't good enough to convince me to go through 5+ ads every time I boot windows for the experience.

I think there's a big different between killing people to end a war and killing people for entertainment.

What did Hiroshima have to do with ending a war? By the time of hiroshima, the japanese army, navy, military was nonexistent and had been for nearly a year. It was just a military test of a barbaric weapon on innocent civilians. It literally was the biggest human experiment of ww2.

Hiroshima both in scale and barbarity is orders of magnitude worse than what the romans did. But then again, we model ourselves after the romans...

Your comment and the downvote proves my point. Though we think we are civilized today, we are just as evil and barbaric as ever. We rationalize our barbarity just like the romans and everyone else does. No civilized person or people would even dream of rationalizing something as evil as nuking innocent and defenseless civilians.

You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII. If anyone sacrificed the people of Hiroshima, it was the Japanese Imperialist Government that refused to surrender despite the obvious obliteration of their conventional forces.

To make it brief, every single landmass occupied by Japanese forces and civilians offered fierce resistance/guerilla warfare to invading/liberating forces. Additionally, as another commenter has noted, the Japanese military had significantly increased their numbers to a staggering 6 million troops towards the end. The death toll projections, based on the above, for a mass land invasion of Japan were many factors greater than the life cost of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - many, many factors greater.

The Japanese government did not just refuse to surrender, but continued to wage war. This meant either a land invasion, or some alternative were necessary to compel the government into surrender.

Dropping the second nuclear bomb accomplished this goal - particularly when accompanied by the (empty) threat of dropping many more until surrender.

It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers. Regardless, the loss of life directly from the bombings and indirectly from the aftermath is still calculated to have been significantly less than the loss of life had a ground invasion been waged.

We dont know this. It's all speculation. All of it. And it's speculation of a winner. So it's not surprising that it conveniently frames the willing destruction of 100,000 people as the lesser of two evils. Also, many people talk about the bombs. But dont forget: the firebombings killed many more people and were aimed at civilians. General LeMay, who ordered the attack that resulted in the murder of 100,000 innocent people in one single night. Said the following when asked about his motives: “There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders.”

If you are willing to see the narrative from another perspective here are some links:

Firebombings of Tokyo: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/asia/japan-tokyo-fire-raids-o...

Court ruling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (deemed unlawful acts of war = war crime) https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/53/Shimoda-...

Some of the highest estimates of death toll caused by both atomic bombs combined are in the low 200,000 range.

The Battle of Okinawa alone had nearly 200,000 military casualties and another 150,000 civilian deaths.[1]

People asserting dropping of the bombs was wrong in any way are divorced from reality. Their position is devoid of all facts.

To be blunt. Dropping of the atomic bombs was not just the right decision, it was the most humane decision.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#:~:text=Th....

You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII.

From an official US atomic historian, a survey of the breadth of opinion on the use of the atomic weapons, from just after until more recently: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u...

There are many entries there on many aspects of atomic weapons and a wealth of declassified contemporary material.

As you can see you're largely repeating one position of a broad field as if it were gospel and there were no other positions and no evolution of the debate.

Many of your points are those that came into being after the use of the bomb, back fitted proto Cold War era justifications.

There was relatively little thought put into using the weapons at the time other than a sense of urgency to field test two distinct designs resulting from the most expensive weapons development program in histrory that didn't produce anything useful until after the Germans surrended.

Hiroshimo & Nagasaki were to be bombed regardless, they were way down the punch list and followed on from 72 other Japanese cities destroyed via firebombing and conventional high explosives.

They were selected not for their importance (they were much further down the last than mid 70's) but because they were relatively untouched and made for good test sites for "just the atomic bomb damage".

One does not need to be a military strategy genius to comprehend the numbers. There is no point in arguing further on this topic. Your position is entirely divorced from reality and therefore might as well be entirely made up.

As an observer of this debate, I would say you're the one completely ignoring all arguments from the other side as "divorced from reality". It seems you're the one who is avoiding reality here.

As another observer of this debate, I disagree completely with brabel, and think that your assessment of your opponent's "arguments" is in fact correct: they're dismissing contemporary US estimates which are well-documented, and which we know were not even intended at the time to be shared with civilians as "propaganda" is hilarious, and divorced from reality. It's probably not worth debating the matter with these particular opponents.

My position, as expressed in my only comment in this entire sub thread, is that you should read more on the subject.

There is no "arguing further on this topic", that was my only contribution, and I reiterate it.

Circle back to the original material and the historic commentary on that material, it's not clear whether you have read any of it let alone grasped the breadth of it.

It’s not speculation. It’s basically common sense. How awful and long would a ground invasion of these areas have been? Would it even be possible? How many of your troops are you willing to sacrifice to spare the lives of your enemy’s civilians?

It is literally speculation, in the literal sense of the word. Speculation, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary: the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain.

The question here is if japan would have surrendered without the Atomic bombs. There is not enough evidence for it being True or False.

Many modern historians claim that japan would have surrendered anyway because its military was in shambles. They hoped for a conditional surrender. The bombs were frightening, but didnt create more damage than the previous firebombings. The fact that the Soviet Union joined the was on the western flank of japan was probably the straw. It blocked all future possibilities of diplomatic conditional surrender by pleading with the Russians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bomb test sites and at least a hundred thousand innocent people died just to see the end-product of the most expensive weapons program ever. If Germany would have done it, all the people in the chain of command would have probably been hanged for war crimes.

Great. Now answer the question. How many of your own troops are you willing to sacrifice for the chance to avoid bombing Hiroshima?

Because we got to 350k casualties from just the US with the bomb.

Why do you think a ground invasion was necessary? WWI finished without a ground invasion of Germany. Completely occupying enemy's territory was not a common way to end a war. The "normal" way was to end your enemy's capacity to fight, and then negotiate surrender. You can argue that the Japanese would refuse to surrender for a lot longer, but to think the "only way" to end their resistance was to either nuke innocent civillians (and I hope no one here thinks "there are no innocent" people, like they did at the time) or occupy the whole country on the ground seems to be ignoring basically every conflict prior and since then.

What are you talking about? There was absolutely a ground invasion of Germany.

> You are encouraged to read deeper about the end of WWII.

I have. Beyond the propaganda and all the nonsense. But you don't need to read deeper to understand evil is evil. Nothing justifies acts of genocide like nuking civilians.

> If anyone sacrificed the people of Hiroshima, it was the Japanese Imperialist Government that refused to surrender despite the obvious obliteration of their conventional forces.

The japanese government had been suing for peace for more than a year prior to hiroshima. But even if they didn't, it still doesn't justify nuking civilians. Just because a government doesn't act in a manner you want doesn't justify murdering civilians. That's the logic of terrorists. Killing civilians to hurt the government. If your morality aligns with terrorists, you really should reassess your moral foundations.

> To make it brief...

You just spouted off propaganda that we all are spoonfed via media and school system. I'm surprised you didn't include the nonsense about purple hearts.

> It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers

More terrorist logic. Just because Manhattan is the center of the US economy doesn't justify 9/11.

That you are trying to justify hiroshima and the nuking of civilians just proves my point. Evil and barbaric. There is no justification for genocide. Period.

>Nothing justifies ...

Citation needed. That's just war: don't like being >insert atrocity here'd< then don't lose.

Personally, I think that people take the wrong lesson away from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

WW2 was fought under the doctrine of "total war". All of a society's resources; including civilians and industry, were part of your war effort. That in turn meant that civilians and industry were considered legitimate military targets. Under that doctrine, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. If the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, then the alternative was not that those cities stayed standing. The alternative was that the cities would be carpet bombed.

Personally, I think that the lesson that we should take away is not so much that dropping the atomic bombs was wrong; rather it's that the doctrine of total war that made dropping the atomic bombs permissible was wrong.

The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. They could have issued an unconditional surrender and the fighting would have stopped within hours. All of the deaths in Hiroshima were entirely their responsibility.

Right, just like Ukraine could just stop the war right now by surrendering unconditionally, and all Ukrainians who are dying in the war are entirely their own government's responsibility, right? This argument goes for both sides of every war, hence it's completely meaningless.

> The US started the war with economic sanctions.

Like Ukraine started a war with Russia by economic alignment with the western powers, or Poland starting a war with Germany in WW II for their offenses against German citizens.

> This is a historical fact.

It's very poor form to introduce a not only controversial opinion but a wholly subjective one, then claim that opinion to be a fact. It erases any credibility you might think you have.

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time. > No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Sanctions started to be imposed in 1938. But Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 and by 1937 invaded China and had already perpetrated the Nanking Massacre. The sanctions were in part a response to the invasion of China and Japanese atrocities against China.

> And? You realize that 1938 is before 1941?

Sanctions were imposed in response to Japan invading China among other things. Japan was clearly the aggressor in Asia before 1938. Sanctions weren't the reason for Japan attacking, it was already on the path to do so before 1938.

> The US ( and much of europe ) invaded china in the 1800s and by 1937 had committed hundreds of massacres. What's your point?

The bad behavior of other countries didn't give Japan the license to invade China and engage in the same behaviors.

>Why was Nanking so important? Oh that's right, it was the center of american and european colonization of china.

No, Nanking is probably the most widely publicized and documented of Japan's atrocities against Chinese civilian populations.

> BTW, the only nationality explicitly banned from the US was the chinese with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The idea that the US cared about chinese lives is laughable.

Although the Chinese were initially targeted in the Chinese exclusion act, the bans there were expanded to include southern europeans and all of asia (e.g. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923).

> > The Japanese government started the war and was free to stop it at any time.

> No. The US started the war with economic sanctions. This is a historical fact.

Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War. You could have started your argument with that; it would've saved time for everyone.

> Ah, you are the kind of person who consider the US the aggressor of the Pacific War.

You mean the country that colonized japan ( twice ), philippines, korea, china, vietnam, not to mention stole hawaii and a bunch of pacific islands? Yes. We have been aggressors in the pacific for centuries.

But if you are talking about US-Japan war, it is historical fact that US sanctions ( an act of war ) was the beginning of US-Japan war.

If you are talking about the overall Pacific War, then it's complicated. European and american invasion and colonization of almost all of asia spurred japan militarization and eventual war.

But regardless, doesn't matter who the aggressor was. Nuking innocent civilians is evil. Period.

The US oil sanctions were in 1941. At that point war was inevitable, the sanctions were a response to Japan's military machine rolling across British Commonwealth territories in the Pacific. The US wasn't formally aligned but was strategically aligned with the British and Commonwealth nations and the sanctions were a response to Japanese military aggression. The sanctions didn't start anything, they were only an action in the middle of a larger conflict, and it's a funny way to frame them as starting a war when they were a non-military response to Japanese military attacks.

Japan was never colonized in the usual sense of the word. I guess the first event you're referring to is Perry's gunboat diplomacy that brought an end to the Tokugawa isolationism, and the second is the occupation post WWII. Neither of these involved the economic exploitation and imposition of total hegemony that typify imperialistic colonization. After all, we don't generally say that the US colonized West Germany after the war.

> Japan was never colonized in the usual sense of the word.

It was in every sense of the word.

> I guess the first event you're referring to is Perry's gunboat diplomacy that brought an end to the Tokugawa isolationism

Not isolationism. Japan didn't isolate itself. It maintained contacts with their 'civilized' neighbors china, korea, etc. Japan simply banned imperial european nations because imperial european nations were behaving badly in japan. Heck even then, they still had european contacts.

The gunboat diplomacy didn't bring an end to isolationism. It ended japan's sovereignty and japan's pathetic attempt to keep european colonizers at bay. It was the start of american/european exploitation and colonization of japan.

> the second is the occupation post WWII.

Yes. The only difference being that the former colonization didn't involved war while the latter did.

> Neither of these involved the economic exploitation and imposition of total hegemony that typify imperialistic colonization

Perry went to japan precisely for economic reasons. To expand US whaling to the other side of the pacific since we wiped out all our whales along our shores. And post ww2 colonization is predominantly about economic exploitation. We literally forced japan to tank their economy in the 80s to enrich ourselves.

> After all, we don't generally say that the US colonized West Germany after the war.

But we say that about the soviet union and east germany... Welcome to the wonderful world of propaganda. Where we have allies whom we firebombed and nuked. While the enemy has 'vassals and colonies and satellites'.

Japan is the most poignant example of american economic colonization. It's the longest lasting and most brutal example of it. We just don't see the obvious because we are programmed by propaganda. Just look at all the propaganda in response to my original comment. If china or russia nuked japan and took it over. It would be obvious because the propaganda would tell us so.

For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#World_W...

Also to say it was just some barbaric test sort of ignores the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped, they weren't some innocent bystander, they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944, and their intention was to continue fighting the war - until the US proved that they had the resources to do it a second time (and therefore unknowably many times, as far as Japan knew).

There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months. You can absolutely debate which lives were lost versus saved, and the ethics of either route - but to just pass it off as some "barbaric human experiment" seems a little disingenuous.

> For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945).

Yes. A bunch of elderly and young boys 'armed' with broomsticks. That you have to resort this level of nonsense should tell you something...

> they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944

You do know that hiroshima occurred in the latter half of 1945 right?

> There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months.

There is no credible argument. Just propaganda.

There is no defense of genocide and war crimes period. Doesn't stop evil people who rationalize the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima/nagasaki, holocaust, etc. But then again the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima, nagasaki, etc happens because of evil people in 'civilized' nations.

It's amazing that you fail to realize that you are proving me correct. Evil and barbarity is alive and well today. Just like in ww2. Just like in the days of caesar and augustus.

It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them. The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

You are correct that the Japanese government had lost at least much of it's will to fight. However, the US believed that the military was likely to stage a coup if the government attempted to surrender.

If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory; which they would likely have annexed. In the long term, it has probably been a good thing for Japan that they did not get that chance.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

> It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them.

Sure. If you are new to the discussion. But I'm not. I've come across all the rationalizations and of course the propaganda all my life. It's always the people peddling debunked propaganda who demand that propaganda be taken seriously.

> The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

Who cares? It's genocide. It's a war crime. It is pure evil. No excuse for it.

> If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

Are you seriously arguing the most racist nation on earth ( US ) cared about a bunch of non-white japanese lives? You do realize that the US had banned japanese immigration decades earlier because the japanese were inferior asians right? The genocidal firebombings of much of japan and hiroshima/nagasaki prove that the US did care about japanese lives.

> The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory;

If so, the US would have accept japan's surrender in 1944 when japan start offering peace terms.

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

No they weren't. If japan or germany had nuked the US, those involved would have been tried and executed for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

You are just regurgitating debunked and pathetic propaganda I've heard many times. All one has to do is think to see through the nonsense.

How pathetic do you have to be to believe a white supremacist nation/government cared about saving japanese lives? The rationalization of evil. It's always evil that rationalizes the most. You sound more ridiculous than nazis who claim hitler tried to save the jews from the soviet communists. Imagine believing we nuked the japanese civilians to save japanese lives. That's beyond dumb and evil.

> Who cares?

You should. Being able to understand that the world is nuanced, entertain positions that you disagree with, and consider different views is an important life skill; both when forming one's worldview and in normal social interactions. Ironically, it's precisely those sorts of skills that we need to prevent an atomic bomb from ever being dropped in the future.

Maybe but I’d sure rather be on the side doing the genocide, nuking, etc than the other side. In many scenarios the group that was decimated lacked the hubris to understand it was beaten. No matter I don’t see all of the people e of the world with their varying interests coming together around the camp fire to sing kumbaya anytime soon.

> Sometimes I wonder how people can actually enjoy songs that are so utterly linked to their times.

Because it sounds good and the more times change, the more they stay the same.

Also, almost every song, every work of art is inextricably tied to their times. From the Bible to Shakespeare to Bach to Prince and Eminem. You can enjoy a work of art in any time, but you can't truly understand it without understanding the context.

And yeah, the first thought that came to mind when I read the title was eminem's without me. Truly, great minds think alike.

> This is visible in the very healthy deep tech industry in Europe.

How can it be deep if new ventures find it difficult to secure funding? If you can't continually grow new companies, you can't develop much depth.

> whereas American companies seem to be much better at creating consumer facing technology.

America's B2B tech sector is just as dominant.

Europe certainly has the population and wealth to be a major tech player, but they've underperformed.

There's an abundance of freshwater in the east coast, northwest and midwest. Why not shift some of the exess water from the great lakes, east coast and northwest to southwest? Can't we pipeline the water to giant reservoirs in the sw or even carve extend tributaries from the missouri river or create canals down to the sw? It's not exactly rocket science.

Way, way too expensive. Pumping water east of the Rockies would use a ton power. Local desalination would cost way less. This plan is not feasible because it pumps water from Sea of Cortez to Salton Sea over 200 mi.

> I'll start by saying that if you're going to roast a paper that an econ nobel winner

"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." -- Paul Krugman ( Nobel Prize Winner in Economics )

If you have to pathetically appeal to authority right from the start, you probably have no argument worth considering.