• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    The atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hand-waved extensively in writing — the same writing that AI is trained on. So naturally, AI will recommend the atrocity that has been justified by “instantly winning the war” and “saving millions of lives.”

    !fuck_ai@lemmy.world

      • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.

        Please show how the nukes are worse.

          • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.

            • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Their only condition was that they wanted to keep the Emperor. It was ridiculous of the Allies to demand a wholly conditional surrender. All those people got blown up just to win the argument about that one point. They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city! And then they did it again! That’s not tactical, that’s strategic. If you’re going to use nukes, at least use them on a military base far away from cities.

              • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city!>

                I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they did that AS WELL.

                Operation Meetinghouse was the US firebombing of Tokyo on 9th-10th of March 1945 which destroyed a 16 square mile area, killing over 100,000 civilians and making millions homeless

                There’s also the B-29 raids america launched from the Marianas that lasted from 17 November 1944 until 15 August 1945

            • lorty@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              What made the Japanese surrender was the Soviet Union declaring war. They held out hope until the very end that the soviets would mediate a peace, even after the nukes.

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      These are word-probability glorified autocorrectors being prompted to “simulate” a nuclear war scenario. What words are going to show up a lot when discussing nuclear war? Launching nukes. Because that’s what all the literature about it has happen.

      Once again, decision making and reasoning is being attributed to something that operates off of word frequency