This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Justification of the Atomic Bombs
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Based on those two facts, do you think the US was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
You're asking us to make a moral judgment based on just two facts?
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Killing innocents is never morally right, even as a means to a 'greater' good.
Post by
74218
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
You do realise that both of those statistics are against bombing, and therefore the there's an implication that you want us to argue against the bombing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Killing innocents is never morally right, even as a means to a 'greater' good.
I agree with you there to some extent. Killing innocents is never morally right, but would you have a greater number of innocent people die, if you had a choice in the matter?
That's not the issue. The issue is directly killing innocents versus not directly killing innocents.
just because I find it so interesting.
I don't find it interesting at all. I find it revolting.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Of course it's horrible, there's no denying that. You also can't deny that whatever you say or do won't reverse it. I'm looking at it from a historical point of view, with me in the President's shoes. Should I have done it? Should I have not done it?
Also, edited the original post.
I also find the fact that someone would even consider it as an option revolting.
Post by
blademeld
Meh, kill one nation's citizens, or let occupied nations' citizens suffer longer.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Their lives > your convenience
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
Their lives > your convenience
But does their lives > other nations' lives?
Edit: I'm not saying that it was justified, just trying to lead the facts into the other direction as well.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Their lives > your convenience
But does their lives > other nations' lives?
Were they threatening to drop a bomb on our citizens? No.
The act of dropping the bomb on them was not a choice between their lives and our lives like you're trying to make it out to be.
Post by
abulurd
Their lives > your convenience
my mens lives > their lives
Most experts of the time predicted at least a million deaths just on our side if we invaded japan.
Personally after reading many interviews, having done analysis of what the japanese had left and ready, I believe it would have been more than that.
Oh and the predicted japanese casualties were in the tens of millions.
Oh and would you look at that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#cite_note-shockley-0
a wikipedia article with citations. How nice.
Now I dont mean this post to feel flippant, and personally I would have a very very very hard time ordering it, but in the end the one thing I come back to is my mens lives > their lives.
edit: spelling and some grammar mistakes.
Post by
74218
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
my mens lives > their lives
Soldiers give up their right to life by taking up arms against another people. Innocent civilians don't.
most experts of the time predicted at least a million deaths just on our side if we invaded japan.
Numbers don't change the fact that killing innocents is morally wrong.
Post by
74218
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
That depends on your definition of "our" I'm not American so your definition wouldn't be applicable to me.
My definition would be of America and her allies, which the civilians of the allies were threatened by Japan due to occupation, as I've been saying.
Also, say that there were indeed no civilians involved at that point, I know revenge is looked down upon, but Japan did bomb Pearl harbor, which is akin to the civilian bombing in the fact that they weren't involved in the war.
Futhermore, let's look at the potential casualties that were prevented through the bombing, by this point, Japan was being bombed in civilian areas to stop construction which killed more people than the atomic bombing, and would have continued to kill more, and transportation of goods, full scale invasion was being planned while small scale assaults were being performed at a high casualty cost.
Again, I'm not justifying it, but I'm giving reason to it.
I don't want to say that I agree or disagree on the bombing myself.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well, they kind of did...you know Pearl Harbor and such.
Pearl Harbor was a military target.
In any case, I don't think it's as black and white as it may seem to be.
What's gray about the sentence 'killing innocents is a moral evil'?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.