Let's be perfectly clear: The US was destroying large Japanese cities and their occupants at the same scale as Hiroshima and Nagasaki for some time, just with less efficiency, and much of the Japanese populace was prepared to fight to the death with shovels and sticks.
I'm not saying that the atomic bombs were a good thing; I'm just pointing out that they weren't particularly worse than what the US was already doing, and prepared to continue doing. And that in the moment, a display of such offensive power could be argued to be a quicker way to end the war, and prevent having to do a ground invasion of the home islands. With today's hindsight, we can definitely see clearly the other local and global repercussions of nuclear weapons, which makes the US having used them carry many different connotations.
But that's likely not even the whole reason nuclear bombs were used in 1945. The USSR were only grudingly allied with the US, because they needed help early on in the European theater. Well before the bombs were dropped, the Soviets had ramped up their military strength and were running roughshod over eastern Europe. Germany had already surrendered, and USSR looked towards the east, taking over Manchuria and Korea, with the Korean peninsula split at the 38th parallel at Potsdam, before the Korean War.
The US wanted to use the bomb as a deterrent to the Soviets, and using atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 accomplished that goal, as well as reducing the expense and risk to US military forces already at war, without increasing the effects on the ground very much. Japan's surrender had plenty to do with making the decision on who to surrender to, with the preference being the US and not the USSR. But Japan did not want to surrender unconditionally, they wanted to ensure that the Imperial government could do so while saving face, and probably while not also being imprisoned or killed. It's likely that Japan would have surrendered with or without any atomic bombs, certainly without the second one.
But the US needed to demonstrate to the world, particularly to Stalin, that they could build as many atomic bombs as they wanted, and that came from dropping a second one in quick succession after the first.
This is long overdue and should be implemented nationwide. Bails are nothing but a class discrimination tool designed to hurt poor people. Glad to see more and more states/cities moving towards discontinuing the horrible practice. That being said, I do agree that keeping it in place for much more serious crimes is probably wise.
I don’t see a reason to keep it in place even for serious crimes. If a crime is serious enough to warrant pre-trial detention, then that person should be held regardless of their ability to pay bail.
Yep, people here in England and Wales (Scotland has a similar system too AFAIK) are remanded in custody if they constitute a flight risk or a danger to the public at large. There are no bonds.
I get we love this narrative on reddit/lemmy that cops are just out killing everyone. But that’s simply not true, being hyperbolic about it doesn’t help us address the actual issue - insane violent crime rates in this country. If we had a ‘normal’ amount of violent crimes, how much less police interactions would people have?
We need to clean up the PD’s, but lets not act like our country makes it easy to be a police officer.
I don’t think you read your first link, here are some quick quotes for ya
from #6 - “The most recent version of the FBI study shows no rise in the national violent crime rate between 2020 and 2021. That said, there is considerable uncertainty around the FBI’s figures for 2021 because of a transition to a new data collection system. The FBI reported an increase in the violent crime rate between 2019 and 2020, when the previous data collection system was still in place.”
Comparing 2022 to 2021 doesn’t really matter, what about a 5 year trend? just because 2020 and 2021 we had a higher rate of crime, that doesn’t mean we only look at 2022 potentially having lower crime rates.
Especially when paired with this quote further down on #8 - " One important consideration is that official statistics for 2022 are not yet available. Voters might be reacting to an increase in violent crime that has yet to surface in annual government reports. Some estimates from nongovernmental organizations do point to an increase in certain kinds of violent crime in 2022: For example, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, an organization of police executives representing large cities, estimates that robberies and aggravated assaults increased in the first six months of this year compared with the same period the year before."
#7 is also telling “While the total U.S. violent crime rate does not appear to have increased recently, the most serious form of violent crime – murder – has risen significantly during the pandemic. Both the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a roughly 30% increase in the U.S. murder rate between 2019 and 2020.”
and I know you didn’t read the second link, because it doesn’t show an increase of police deaths by year. It shows years from the 1980-2019. It analyses unreported deaths from police. Not at all what I think you’re trying to discuss.
My guy, I’m not sure that you read either link despite quoting them. You skipped over #5, huh? Or #6, that despite a surge the murder rate is still below previous highs? Hell, they even say that outright in #7.
You’re right that I didn’t specifically link the second article to discuss underreported deaths. I did it because Figure 2 shows NVSS data that I could not otherwise locate easily, which also shows the trend I suggested. It can be difficult, I’m sure for reasons you understand, to source figures for police violence from rigorous sources… Especially when, as the article I linked notes, there are numerous issues with official sources. Here’s UIC’s page anyway, though.
But sure, yeah, thanks for your helpful illumination.
You skipped over #5, huh? Or #6, that despite a surge the murder rate is
I actually didn’t! #5 - “Annual government surveys from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show no recent increase in the U.S. violent crime rate.” If you wanted me to look and note how this is not at all your claim, I’ll do it. I just thought it was redundant. So that proves your statement false again.
#6 - Is an estimate based on a survey that they claim showed no increase. Once again, against what you said of decreasing. Here’s a useful quote for you: “It relies on data voluntarily submitted by thousands of local police departments, but many law enforcement agencies do not participate. In the latest FBI study, around four-in-ten police departments”
Your argument of violent crime going down is incorrect based on this survey taken of police departments that only really 40% shared. I don’t think that’s the smoking gun you want, especially because it’d be friendly fire.
#7 - if you have an issue with what I quoted, please show me what goes against my argument, and for yours.
Regarding the second link, I understand, I hate when I am looking for something specific, that should be easy to find (I also looked up homicides by police over years and couldn’t find much) - but I still, it does look like rates, specifically over the last 5 years have been on an upward tend. That’s worrying, I’m curious the analysis on this.
I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.” The graph with #5 goes back to 1993. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.
Besides which, the claim of “insane violent crime rates” is your contention, and you have provided no definition or source for this notion.
I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.
I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.”
Oh, so you’re comparing this last year to…what? You need some sort of finite time period, no? Or are you comparing rates to as long as humanity existed? To be fair, adam and eve, there was no violent crimes. First one was Cain and Able, so you’d be wrong in that instance too.
The graph with #5 goes back to the 1980s. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.
Well if you’re using that as your gauge, then police killings are also down, see figure 3, the same figure you refereed me to before. Which is it? Do you want to compare police killings from 2015 to now and violent crime rates over the last 100 years? That doesn’t make sense, it seems like you’re the one arbitrarily choosing time periods.
You’re the one comparing these two, you gotta be consistent. You can’t change your metrics simply because you don’t like they way they turn out.
I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.
That’s a bummer, our last messages we were a bit closer to understanding, but then this message it seemed you lost all direction of your argument. Or maybe because you realized that you were arguing a point that contradicts itself if you have to be consistent.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.