69
Truman had it right when he described MacArthur as a "stupid son-of-a-bitch" Life is truly noncredible GOD I WANT TO DIE IN A NUCLEAR WAR (media.piefed.social)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/noncredibledefense@piefed.social
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 6 months ago* (11 children)

Doesn't that whole argument kind of hinge upon the notion that China would not lose against USA even after nuclear bombardment? I'm not saying that dropping nukes on Japan was justified, that was horrific and it to this day creates animosity among the Japanese, but at the same time you cannot deny Japan is a better nation today than the empire was.

That consequentialist in me has to weigh atrocities as impartially as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Perhaps, but I'm trying to defend this timeline lol.

    Because I really do not like the "I get stuck in PRC" timeline, even just the thought of it makes me have an existential crisis.

    I like my Youtube, and video games, and the open internet (open for now at least, who knows about the future 🤷‍♂️), the idea of living behind that firewall sounds kinda depressing (VPNs are not exactly reliable).

    But the again with something as drastic as one country nuking another... China might not even have any internet at all, and become like North Korea...

    Like what do people even do for fun in that timeline? Play with rocks? 😭

    No thanks, I like to keep the ability to bingewatch my "Non-Approved" "Counterrevolutionary" western media. (I mean like... did you hear, they limit video games to 1 hour for those under 18, like bruh wtf, anything fun is banned)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    "The US after the second civil war is a better country. It's a shame there has to be millions of dead people and some nuclear wastelands but now it's a nicer neighbor"

    Does this sound right to you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Doesn’t that whole argument kind of hinge upon the notion that China would not lose against USA even after nuclear bombardment?

    It would 'win' the Korean War, but how would that change the Chinese government unless you're also proposing an invasion of China to go along with the border you've just nuked?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    I never said anything about the boarder, and I think nuking is way past the stage of discussing whether or not to invade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    I never said anything about the boarder,

    That's MacArthur's suggestion, which is what the topic started on.

    and I think nuking is way past the stage of discussing whether or not to invade.

    ... so your proposal here is to start an indefinite war and occupation which will alienate us from every major ally in the 1950s, kill literal millions of Chinese civilians and God knows how many American and Chinese soldiers, risk the Soviet Union directly entering the war to defend China, especially as this was before the Sino-Soviet split, and normalize the use of nuclear weapons, in exchange for...

    ... the possibility of overthrowing the PRC?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    The alternative is the CCP being a constantly increasing threat to the entire world and pushing us towards an increasingly authoritarian dystopian future. So, yes, I am saying the USA should have fucked with China in the 1950s.

    I am a consequentialist. If we can use it to create a proven better future with more happiness and security then bloodshed is not just optional: it is necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    The alternative is the CCP being a constantly increasing threat to the entire world and pushing us towards an increasingly authoritarian dystopian future.

    Okay, China is dead. Destroyed. Nuked into oblivion. No more China, no more CCP.

    What the ever-loving fuck is the next step in this scenario which doesn't result in massive backlash against the US and the ideology it champions and a surge in the fortunes of the Soviet Union?

    I am a consequentialist. If we can create a proven better future with more happiness and security then bloodshed is not just optional: it is necessary.

    A big part of my point is that what you're proposing is not only not a proven better future, it is a likely worse one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    In your mind does Japan also no longer exist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    ... so is your argument that two nukes will make China come making to the table, asking us to revoke their entire form of government and make them our vassal state, while the Soviet Union sits in the cuck chair, crying and jerking off?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    I think it would destabilize the CCP to say the least. How much of it becomes allied, demilitarized, or enemy territory is difficult to say unless I had extensive knowledge of the internal factions of the districts of China in the 1950s, but yes I think that could potentially be the superior timeline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent