Today as we observe the 60 year anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima…
I share with you these photographs of London.
Today as we observe the 60 year anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima…
I share with you these photographs of London.
Very clever, Kate. You had me thinking that the pics were of Hiroshima.
Had the US not dropped the big one on Hiroshima, then perhaps the pics would also be of mainland America and Canada.
It was kind of the point. The overweening coverage being given to Hiroshima is never contrasted with the damage done to London, Dresden, any number of European cities by conventional bombing. At ground level, it all looks pretty much the same, and the civilians no less dead.
That’s true. Also, why not show a couple of pics of Ground Zero, still smoking, late in the day on 9/11? Or any of the terror attacks before and after? Same thing.
The difference, however, between Hiroshima and London or, more appropriately, Pearl Harbor, is that Hiroshima was called for and Pearl Harbor was not. Similarly, the murder bombings inside Israel by Palestinians were uncalled for whereas, for example, Jenin was justified. The left has it all backwards or at least rationalizes it all into relativity.
The blast damage to Hiroshima was much more extensive.
A-bombs of that magnitude do not exist anymore, as the ones nowadays are many factors more destructive.
Kate’s point is spot on. The Tokyo firestorm of March 10, 2005 is reported to have resulted in over 100,000 dead and the destruction of half the city. On February 13/14 1945, nearly 700,000 incendiary bombs were dropped on Dresden leaving just a smoldering pile of rubble, with casualty figures ranging from 25,000 to 250,000 killed. Since the city was filled with refugees at the time, a median figure of 100,000 is most frequently quoted.
Hiroshima was unique only in the kind of bomb used, not in the number of dead or the extent of the destruction. The long-term effects of radiation are singular, to be sure, but the horrors of being set aflame by a phosphorous bomb are no less than being exposed to an atomic blast.
The number of cities which were turned into rubble is something that would be quite difficult to compile. It’s not limited to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it includes cities that US forces never touched, and Axis powers are the ones who started the ‘city-busting’. The first significant firestorm was in the City of London (the ‘Old City’) on December 29, 1940 courtesy of the Luftwaffe. Casualties were light, but damage was severe. (Kate’s photos are a good example)
And for Japan to be upset about cruel weapons or inhumane treatment is amazingly hypocritical. Their treatment of POW’s, atrocities against civilians in China, the Philippines, Singapore – all documented. Where’s the hue and cry for THOSE victims? (A rhetorical question; we all know the answer, un fortunately….)
And lest someone think I’m heartless – I mourn for the victims of Hiroshima. And Dresden. And London. And Tokyo. I just don’t feel that it’s proper to enshrine one set of victims above another – especially those of the agressor state, when that nation was showing every sign of fighting a very prolonged war that was sure to cost countless lives on both sides.
Terrorism is terrorism, and is to be condemned regardless of the perpetrator. It is true that the terrorist bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were opposed by many U.S. officials and scientists, including General Eisenhower) brought an immediate end to the war and may well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run. That’s a fact that cannot easily be dismissed. But if terrorism is to be justified in consequentialist terms, that’s a can of worms we may not want to open. Too many governments and movements have justified the sacrifice of non-combatants (peasants, capitalists, socialists, Jews, subway riders, whomever) on the grounds of long-term utility.
Terrorist bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There was a WAR going on, remember?
Aeolus, you are an idiot.
The innocent deaths and injuries on all sides are equally tragic. However, sometimes war is necessary. It’s an inescapable fact of humanity on planet Earth. Since time immemorial there have been conflicts of varying scales and types- religious, racial, national, resource- and economic-based, etc. Some sides wrong, some righteous.
The basic difference between right and wrong is if one is undeservedly attacked by someone who attacks for selfish or religious or racial reasons, one can retaliate and be righteous. On the other hand, One cannot make the first strike and be righteous unless there is compelling reason to believe it is necessary based on past illegal offensive actions of the enemy. Also, one cannot be righteous in retaliation for a retaliation for a wrongful attack. Case in point: the Palestinians and other Arabs, including Egypt, Syria and Transjordan drew first blood against the Israelis. Since then the Israelis have been engaged in self-defensive actions whereas the Arabs/Palestinians have been keeping the conflict going in a wrongful attempt to, as they often state, get rid of Israel, who has as much of a right to exist as the other M.E. states.
The left believes the Palestinians are committing terrorism against Israel because of “occupation”, which is false. Israel won the war of 1967 in which she was defending herself against annihilation. In winning, Israel captured land previously held by other Arab nations, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and therefore, as a matter of “international law” with respect to war, Israel now owned those territories; therefore, there’s no occupation. The dispute arose because Israel allowed Arabs to continue living in these territories rather than forcing them out or worse. The Arab “refugees” couldn’t emigrate to other Arab/Muslim states because those states refused them entry, deliberately precipitating the development of terrorism as another futile attempt to get rid of Israel.
So Israel is effectively paying the price for its fair, humane treatment of innocent civilians. The jihadists exploited the “refugees” by convincing them they were being occupied and downtrodden by Israel and many more malicious lies. After all, the jihadists are racist and bigoted towards nonMuslims and will stop at nothing to rid the world of those who are different. Hence the “Intifada” and all that horrible stuff, perhaps including Al Qaeda…
Too bad the left is unable to tell the good from the bad.
Aeolus, you do not understand what terrorism is. I recommend you look it up! What’s stopping you?
For real historical background on Hiroshima, I recommend this excellent article based on the now available SIGINT evidence that decisively refutes the revisionists/critics from the 1960s on:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Ut…894&R=C62A29C91
I imagine much of the article is based on this superb publication by the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence, “The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signals Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb Decision”, by Douglas J. MacEachin:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/ monograph…csi9810001.html
Mark
Ottawa
The most commonly accepted figure now for deaths in Dresden in 25-40,000. The neo-Nazi, David Irving, promoted the highest figures, for self-evident reasons.
Mark
Ottawa
At the end of hostilities in Europe in 1945 the war was still gobbling up lives and treasure in the Pacific Theater. Casualties for the US Marines and Army on Okinawa and the Navy offshore facing thousands of kamikazi attacks were piling up at nearly unbearable levels, when viewed in the context of the rest of WWII’s carnage. The veterans who had fought all the way across Europe were nearly all slated to be shipped off to the Pacific and the impending invasion of the Japanese home islands. My uncle was one of these veterans. He said he and his buddies all thought they were doomed to die, because all their luck had certainly run out. When the A-bombs went off these men, and countless others, felt that the war was at last truly over and they would live. The Japanese started the war for the US, and the US ended it without totaly destroying Japan and sacrificing some or all of it to a Soviet Red Army freed from fighting the Nazis. Hindsight be damned.
Jeff in Pullman, WA: I urge you to read the CIA monography I listed above. Any invasion of Kyushu might have been much worse than even you imagine.
Mark
Ottawa
The British are heroes again:>>>
Russian sub cut free!
Posted by NickatNite2003
On 08/06/2005 5:55:42 PM PDT � 8 replies � 14+ views
CNN | Me
CNN just abnnounced a Brit robosub just cut the last cable holding the sub down, and Russians have communicated to freed sub, to prepare for emergency surfacing! Sub acknoledged HOOOORAAAAYYY!>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458425/posts
Oustanding news maz2! And outstanding discourse everyone! Well done. Good reading here.
How stupid of me! I totally forgot that deliberately killing non-combatants isn’t terrorism as long as it’s part of a WAR. Now, let’s see. President Bush says there’s a war going on now. It’s called the War on Terror. That means…hmmm…that bombing buses, subways, mosques, etc. aren’t acts of terrorism after all, because they’re part of a WAR. But that means that the War on Terror is a war against… Whoa, now I’m completely confused.
Aeolus, it is for the likes of you that I lament the loss of the WW2 generation.
Aeolus: Check out the Rape of Nanking etc. And read the references I listed above. In other words, learn.
Mark
Ottawa
Aeolus: Please specify one subway the US has attacked.
I think you may indeed be confused, notably on the subway bombing subject.
Mark
Ottawa
So is the intentional targeting of civilians “terrorism”, or not?
Trying to explain the difference between war and terrorism is not something that is necessary. At least not unless your purpose is to bring about the complete destruction of what is usually referred to as ‘Western Civilization’. But that seems to be the case here,
since following Aeolus’ line of thinking would have meant that no aerial bombardment could have been undertaken in WWII, the Normandy invasion could not have taken place (civilian casualties – a terrorist act!), and (based on the way the WoT is referenced) the US should never have given Britain any aid against the Axis powers. Aeolus must want to live in a nation like that which would have resulted from the inevitable Axis victory. When can we expect you to be on your way?
And if you’re not planning on leaving, perhaps you’d be kind enough to go to Pearl Harbor this coming December 7th, stand in the midst of one of the memorial ceremonies and shout out your opinions regarding how the US is a terrorist nation for its actions in WWII. I’d recommend the USS Arizona as a good spot, but you can pick your own – I’m sure you’ll get the same warm welcome anywhere.
One vote for “not” I guess.
Normandy didn’t feature the intentional targeting of civilians, did it? Incidental civilian casualties are a separate issue, and the fact that American and British forces do not deliberately target civilians in Iraq and Afganistan make their actions acceptable to me, while I have no qualms about calling the bad guys in those places “terrorists” because they tend to blow up civilians as a matter of policy.
In the case of WW2 the only justification for intentional targeting of civilians is that since the Japanese and German economies were so militarized, citizens were essentially combatants in the sense that any logistics soldier is. And if that reasoning doesn’t follow, bombing civilians is simply terrorism. And while it may have been necessary, it could never be called right.
Aeolus (he’s not the god of the winds, but is certainly full of hot air) should someday realize that moral equivalence is just another hobgoblin of little minds. Terror is an element of every war and is used by both sides as they battle to conquer the other. Aeolus is a fool to fail to understand that to most effectively and efficiently fight evil it is often necessary to use evil’s own tactics. Righteousness covered in blood is still righteousness when it is opposed to the likes of Nazisim, Bushido or Islamofacism. The A-bomb was used to end a war, not start one.
M4-10,
There wasn’t any intentional targeting of civilians at Normandy, but because of the proximity of coastal towns to the landing areas and the fact that it was impossible to provide warning and/or evacuate, there were civilian casualties. Of course, the same was true of many major battles in WWII, because they were fought in urban areas throughout Europe. My point is that in the eyes of those like Aeolus, there is no such thing as a legitimate war if a single ‘non-combatant’ (a thorny definition, too) is killed/injured in its prosecution. Which means that no war has ever been legitimate – or can be legitimate. And, therefore, those like Naopleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. should be allowed to do as they please, because it would be immoral to fight back under less than pristine conditions.
What is interesting to note is that folks like Aeolus can only make statements like they do in free nations – which exist because of the very wars they condemn. Ain’t irony great????!!!!!!
Joey, that was an excellent point. As has been mentioned by others, Japan wasn’t exactly following Miss Manners’ Rules of Etiquette. While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, I think it’s a case of the ends justifying the means. Aside from ending the war, the aftermath has made it as close as possible to an absolute that such weapons will never be used again (unless, of course, Osama or someone of his ilk were to get his hands on one, in which case all bets are off).
So according to Aeolus we’re not allowed to defend ourselves. Grow up little he/she/it, this is the real world. When you get you or someone close to your life snuffed out for no logical reason, you’ll change your totally warped and demented attitude.
All war is bad, there is no good war.
What Nagasaki and Hiroshima signify is the end of war as we know it. As Einstein says “I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.
There will never be another major (world) war. War affects everyone. I know both of my parents were WWII vets. Physical damage is not everything. H.G. Wells predicts the end of war in his novel “The World Set Free”, it’s available online.
The world is too “small” and weapons too powerful to contemplate nuclear war.
The kind of “hate week” politics practiced by some world powers is passe. I have an 1980 National Geographic that has an article about Saddam being a good leader. I guess they were more worried about Iran. I sort of think of him as Frankhussien.
moonbat
Ambivalent Anniversary
The United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and one on Nagasaki two days later, with a death and injury total over 200,000. Why they were dropped.Nuclear weapons are often said to pose a
‘Little Boy’, (dropped on Hiroshima), used enriched Uranium (U238) shaped in the form of a subcritical donut, with a solid plug driven into it to achieve supercriticality.
‘Fat Man’ (named after Winston Churchill), was an implosion device, using Plutonium 239. (It was a Canadian Physicist named Lois Slotin who was assigned the task of establishing sub-critical mass of Plutonium while at Los Alamos, (and who died in the attempt when an experiment went wrong). Just google his name for a fascinating read. (hint: he was not holding the two halves of the core apart with a screwdriver-that slipped and caused the core to go critical.
And Slotin’s pet name for his experiment was not called ‘tickling the dragon’s tail’.)
Canada does have nuclear warheads- by the way- we acquired them from Russia, and they are stored at Chalk River. (What we are doing with these things, I have no idea.)
“While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, I think it’s a case of the ends justifying the means.”
But the end ***does not*** justify the means. People who have abortions often do so with a good end in mind, but that doesn’t justify killing an innocent child. Communists enslave nations with the intention of helping the poor, etc.
“Aeolus, you do not understand what terrorism is. I recommend you look it up! What’s stopping you?”
terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
If you say that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or London, Dresden, etc.) weren’t unlawful (i.e. not against the law), then the same could be said of Islamicist attacks, which are not unlawful from the point of view of their law. But as we know, law and morality are two different things.
The fact is that deliberately killing civilians is wrong.
Hamilcar simply doesn’t understand and is wrong. He/she didn’t bother to read what I and some others wrote above dealing with exactly the claims he/she made.
Hamilcar somehow thinks that the British, the Canadians and Americans as well as other Allies had deliberately targetted civilians. How the hell can anyone come to this conclusion? They must be thinking what they’re told to think by the left. There was no intentional targetting of civilians. Hell, recall what Hitler did to the civilians in his own nation. That is not equal to incidental civilian casualties incurred in operations to STOP the war.
Similarly, the Islamist attacks deliberately kill innocents whereas the operations to stop them do not. Big difference, but it is lost on stupid left-wing extremists. Spoiled rotten brats, they are.
Another sad example of left-wing relativism. Is it any wonder lefties annoy me so?
What a total idiot that Aeolous fellow is.
dave: The uranium used in “Little Boy” was U-235. The bomb casing actually surrounded a 3-inch naval AA gun; the plug of uranium was fired from one end into the donut at the other end to achieve rapidly the critical mass. So confident were the bomb designers that this type of weapon was not tested and worked first time at Hiroshima.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/FirstNuclWeapons/LittleBoy.htm
With plutonium, however, this method would just have produced a fizzle, so the much more complex and difficult implosion method with explosive lenses had to be developed.
Canada has received no nuclear warheads from Russia. In 2000 some mixed oxide fuel (MOX), to be used as fuel in CANDU reactors, was flown from Russia to Chalk River.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/fissmat/mox/moxfueld.htm
Mark
Ottawa
So now Aeolus has become Hamilcar (the Carthaginian general and father of Hannibal). It is a shame that his erudition has produced in him such vapid drivel. A solid and meaningful education enables one to truly think and express oneself independently, not just spew forth the pieties of indoctrination. French philosophy has ruined many once promising minds.
Stephen McAllister,
With regard to your accusations about me, you’re the moral relativist, not me. I believe that the same rules of morality apply to everyone. And I’m probably more right-wing than you are.
In any case, I think you have to admit that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed deliberate attacks on civilians. Indeed, one could consider them terrorist attacks, killing civilians with the intent to frighten the Japanese into doing something (ending the war). It was not at all a matter of “incidental civilian casualties”.
“Similarly, the Islamist attacks deliberately kill innocents whereas the operations to stop them do not.”
I agree. But the Americans also deliberately killed innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is something moral just because our side does it? That’s moral relativism.
Good points all around, but attempting to make value judgements going back 60 years or more is a fool’s game at best. Hiroshima/Nagasaki happened. Period. It ended a horrendous war and avoided a bloodbath beyond our comprehension, Japan was rehabilitated as a peaceful, industrious and prosperous nation and it served as a dire warning to other nations that might have been contemplating war. Whatever else one thinks about it, at least that much has to be acknowledged as a good thing.
Besides, methinks that, despite his professed right wing leanings, Hamilcar/Aeolus has a wee thingy against Americans in general and GWB in particular. That always affects a person’s capacity for rational thought and judgement in a weird, yet predictable way.
Careful my friend, your ideological slip is showing…
Clear,
“Hamilcar/Aeolus has a wee thingy against Americans in general and GWB in particular.”
I’m not the same person as Aeolus. I love Americans, and GWB too. The President isn’t perfect (his decision on embryonic stem-cell research was wrong, for instance), but he seems to want to do what’s right. A lot of the people here, though, seem to follow the erroneous idea that “the end justifies the means.”
Remember that God will give us victory if He wishes. Our duty is but to do what is right. Even if things look really bad, there is no reason to lose hope and turn to evil.
I think one of the main reasons the bombs were used was to fend off the Russians and to show them the available power. The Russians only declared war on Japan in June or July. But they are really close and had a score to settle from 1904 or so. Can you imagine if your Sony TV or Toyota was built like a Russian tractor?
I have a August 1945 edition of Popular Mechanics. On the cover is “New Amphibs for Attacking Japan”. Only very few people knewit wasn’t going to happen.
moonbat
Hamilcar,
I noted earlier in a comment to Aeolus that if targeting Hiroshima/Nagasaki was wrong, then so was all aerial bombardment during WWII, since in the absence of ‘smart bombs’ it was certain to target civilians – and in many cases entire cities themselves were the targets. Ditto a great deal of artillery fire. So I presume what you’re saying is that WWII should have been fought entirely by ‘white of their eyes’ type battles, where it was possible to see the uniform of the persons being shot/fired upon.
That’s great, if your name is Candide. But the reality of that war required certain approaches, and even at that it was still a near thing. There was a lot of agonizing over this very question 65 years ago, and part of the answer came from the idea that a nation at war is more than an army/navy. You can fight the army by direct confrontation, or you can seek to deprive it of weapons by attacking the source of those weapons. The people who make the guns, bullets, planes, tanks, etc. and the factories all the parts come from are located – guess where – in cities! So an attack on cities becomes an attack on the supply lines to the enemy army. Is this reasoning unquestionably morally proper? Probably not. But it was an attempt to answer the question ‘is it better to kill the man with the gun or the man who makes the bullets’, and that question matters greatly in terms of potential casualties on both sides of a war.
So what’s you answer? Is the man who makes the bullets supposed to be considered a non-combatant? The folks in the factories putting together ME-262’s, U-Boats, Tiger tanks – they were off limits? You can only start the shooting when the Army takes possession? Or, do the people putting weapons in the hands of their military have to take some responsiblity?
Joey W,
I have nothing against targeting factories involved in making armaments, etc. If you work in a munitions factory, you know you’re a target, since you’re directly involved in the war effort. You can decide for yourself if you want to be involved in that, just as you can decide whether or not to join the army (assuming the government doesn’t decide for you).
“[I]f targeting Hiroshima/Nagasaki was wrong, then so was all aerial bombardment during WWII, since in the absence of ‘smart bombs’ it was certain to target civilians – and in many cases entire cities themselves were the targets.”
If you’re aiming for a factory, and doing what you can to avoid killing innocent civilians, then you’re not targetting civilians – you’re targeting the factory. Obviously, civilians die in war, and that can’t be helped. There’s also “friendly fire” in war, which is wrong if directly intended but acceptable if it’s an unintended side-effect of your attacks on the enemy, etc. We developed smart bombs precisely to minimize civilian casualties, and that’s a good thing. However, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not involve an effort to spare civilians – an indiscriminate attack on a city means that the civilians were directly targeted.
Hamilcar/Aeolus (whatever), can’t you get it through your thick skull that: YES, the A-bombs on Japan targeted BOTH military and civilian targets, but even MORE civilians than those that perished in the nuclear attacks were certain to die in any invasion of Japan. In late July, 1945 the Japanese made it very plain that that they intended to fight on, using both military forces and civilian combatants (even children). The militarist clique leading Japan was determined that ALL of Japan was to die for the emperor. It was not until the A-bombs were used did Hirihito step in and demand that his nation surrender before it could be helplessly destroyed while American and Allied forces remained well away from the longed-for invasion bloodbath. Hence, bad was used to avoid worse. What would be your choice Hamilous? The Japanese people chose war, and they got it, Toyota.
Fascinating discussion. I’m trying to remember whether my schooling included any discussion of Hiroshima/Nagasaki at all. All I’m coming up with are recollections of brief discussions at home, or of news reports on the anniversaries. It seemed simple enough, the way it was presented, and I just accepted that these were attacks on civilians, intended to save many more lives by frightening Japan into ending the war.
Now here is where it gets interesting: thanks to aeolus and Hamilcar, this discussion has gone deep enough to give me some new information, and now I know that I will have to go back and learn some more. (Mark Collins, the links you suggested seem to be broken.) Given my inadequate understanding, aeolus seemed to have an interesting point: that an attack specifically targetting civilians is a form of terrorism. Some called aeolus names, or tried to dismiss Hamilcar with an ideological label, but some responded by giving more food for thought. Thanks.
War is indeed an enterprise that uses terror to achieve its ends, but to mindlessly morally equate both sides in a conflict is, at least in the instance touted by A&H above, intellectually bankrupt. I believe Aeolus/Hamilcar to be a moral fraud.(and Laura should make her lollipop lectures more substantive)
Hamilcar,
I feel I have to give this one last try.
The “guy who makes the bullets” wasn’t intended to be limited to someone who works in an armaments factory (who, at least in Nazi Germany, very likely didn’t have the option of quitting). It’s a concept – and the concept extends back to the general population, since someone has to feed the guy who makes the bullets, sell him clothing, etc. A war economy is an interlocked entity, and the citizens of a nation at war are all a part of that economy – and by extension, a part of the war. This isn’t a new idea; it was understood centuries ago, when families of those in conquered lands were enslaved by the victors – not so much because they needed the labor as as to deny their support to the other side.
In the end, what this amounts to is that you assert that a) the general citizenry of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ‘innocent civilians’, and that b) there was no morally positive reason for bombing those cities. You’re entitled to that opinion, but I’d ask you to consider that it’s an opinion which works much better in theory than in practice. When a war of the magnitude of WWII needs to be dealt with, there are lives – lots of them – to be considered. Imagine the criticism that the US government would now be facing faced if it hadn’t used the bombs, had invaded Japan, and had racked up the expected 500,000-1,000,000 US casualties and several million Japanese dead. Would the sacrifice of all those lives have been worth it?
Nagasaki had both the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works).
Hiroshima was an important army depot and port of embarkation.
With this information both targets of the atomic bomb were considered military targets by the president.
To add to Truman’s list, Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army. Moonbat has a good point too, about the American desire to display the A-bomb’s power to the Russians. At the close of WWII American forces wanted to go home, while Russian forces would have gone wherever Stalin wanted them to go, despite their nation’s exhaustion.
We all have opinions. To have a better basis for them I would plead that all read the references from my earlier post:
‘For real historical background on Hiroshima, I recommend this excellent article based on the now available SIGINT evidence that decisively refutes the revisionists/critics from the 1960s on:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Ut…894&R=C62A29C91
I imagine much of the article is based on this superb publication by the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence, “The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signals Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb Decision”, by Douglas J. MacEachin:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/ monograph…csi9810001.html’
Research everyone.
Mark
Ottawa
Karl the Krud,
“to mindlessly morally equate both sides in a conflict is, at least in the instance touted by A&H above, intellectually bankrupt.”
I haven’t morally equated both sides. I’ve equated the morality of the actions of those on both sides. When Judgment Day comes, do you think Christ will ask you what side you were on in order to be able to properly judge you? No. If a particular action is right, it is right; and if it is wrong, it is wrong. What side you’re on or what you’re hoping to achieve does not turn evil into good.
Hamilcar
Delenda est carthago
Joey W,
“A war economy is an interlocked entity, and the citizens of a nation at war are all a part of that economy – and by extension, a part of the war.”
You sound like the people who say that there are no civilians in Israel, or that ordinary Iraqi citizens are collaborators and thus valid targets. I guess when the Chinese declare war on us, and nuke your town, you’ll have no moral objection. After all, you and your family live in your country and are “by extension, a part of the war.”
“This isn’t a new idea; it was understood centuries ago”
Centuries ago, people understood that it’s wrong to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.
“In the end, what this amounts to is that you assert that a) the general citizenry of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ‘innocent civilians’,”
Yes, just as the general citizenry of your town are innocent civilians and shouldn’t be nuked.
“and that b) there was no morally positive reason for bombing those cities.”
I’m saying that any morally positive reason is irrelevant. If raping someone (your mother, for instance) would save a hundred lives, should you do it? Saving all those lives is a morally positive reason… The answer is no, you shouldn’t, because rape doesn’t suddenly become something good if you have a good end in mind. The end doesn’t justify the means.
“Imagine the criticism that the US government would now be facing faced if it hadn’t used the bombs, had invaded Japan, and had racked up the expected 500,000-1,000,000 US casualties and several million Japanese dead.”
I’d rather be criticized for doing the right thing than be praised for being a murderer.
Besides, why would Japan have to be invaded? Without raw materials and fuel from the outside world, Japan would be a big Shogun-era prison. We could do what Admiral Nimitz proposed: blockade Japan and wait until they decide to give up. They’d soon run out of fuel, and then we’d only have wooden boats to deal with.