(September 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm)Shell B Wrote: I think what is being lost here is that saying it was immoral and wrong is not quite the same as saying it did not work or it was not strategically sound. A war was going on, yes. Most things about war are immoral and wrong. Are they necessary? It depends on who you ask. I will never, ever say that dropping two nukes was good.
I have a bone to pick with you over this.
Can it not also be argued that not engaging in a strategic action (that by definition saves manpower and resources) is immoral?
Dropping nukes was good because dropping firebombs was considered good. Just like dropping any munition is considered 'good'.
You've failed to demonstrate the moral difference between a nuclear warhead and a conventional firebomb.
Nor have you disputed the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets.
A great many people perished in Tokyo due to the firebombs. Many died in Dresden from the same.
Are you really willing to go out on a limb and assign morality to an entire class weapons that are meant to kill entire cities when other classes accomplish the same or even greater body counts?
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
