I guess maybe a puerile Revolution-style reboot of the world, where society is rebooted without all the pain and suffering and harm and grit and dirt would be more palatable for people.... You know, the PG-11 version...
Sort of like that original Star Trek episode where instead of actually fighting a war, each side sends a specified number of citizens to a quick, painless death based on simulations run by computers.
Yes, absolutely, 100% yes. It would be exciting to see how it actually played out, and how accurate our predictions of it were. I think there is an excitement about seeing any hypothetical on that big a scale played out. That's why people like zombies and disaster movies. It doesn't have anything to do with actually wishing that thing would happen. I would venture to guess that exactly zero percent of people responding "yes" actually want a nuclear war to happen.
Essentially my sentiments.
Its a little like saying that you'd be excited at the prospect of someone raping you or cutting your throat. The difference is that war, and particularly nuclear war, is considered totally and utterly in the abstract and depersonalised.
While this attitude (making the best of a bad situation) is helpful in most areas of life, I don't think being brutal violent attacks are in the same category.
The attitude of making the best of a bad situation is helpful and appropriate in ANY situation. What, after all, is the alternative? Making the bad situation even worse? "Making the best of it" need not imply agreement or acquiescence, and certainly not enjoyment. It does mean accepting the reality of the situation - yes, this is happening. From there, you do your best to survive, help others, fight back/escape, and learn what you can, if only to prevent it happening again.
The word "excitement" seems to be responsible for much of the disagreement. Many people associate it with only positive experiences, implying a desire to have those experiences. It is also often associated with experiences like reckless joyriding, drug use, and the commission of crimes from vandalism to rape, activities usually considered negative. What they share in common is the adrenaline rush, the heightened senses, the focus and sense of urgency or immediacy, often in the presence of something momentously different and unexpected. In this spirit, and under illumination of my choosing, I can only agree with the OP.
Who doesn't know that Nagasaki or Hiroshima were an attack against a race/nation of people?
They were not. The decision to use (previously untried) nuclear weapons was based on a determination that this would bring the war to a much quicker end, and actually result in less overall loss of life. Concern about the Soviet Union likely reinforced that decision. The identity/nature of the enemy was incidental.
The first bomb was justified, then? So it can be logically extended the necessity of the second bomb is a matter of opinion? Bare in mind it resulted in an objective conclusion of the Pacific front with the added benefit of minimizing American (and Japanese, perhaps) causalities.
As I agreed above, yes. Moreover, had the U.S. not used nuclear weapons, the world would not have the firsthand knowledge of their horrific effects, knowledge that may have contributed to the fact that they have not been used since.
Yes, we can interpret anything any way we want to. However, having the ability to do something--even inside our minds--doesn't give us a free moral pass to do it without discrimination. There's a time and a place for play.
We don't need a "moral pass" to think about things, just to translate those thoughts into actions. Oftentimes it is the process of thinking them through, of conducting those thought experiments, that shows us what a bad idea something would be in reality.
