(September 13, 2012 at 5:17 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 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?
I don't usually have anything good to say about Ron Paul ( a fucking creationist nutbag who thinks we'd be better off living in the 1820's ) but this ad he ran - except for blaming Obama for Bush's wars - is spot on. If Mexico ever bought a couple of drones and fired a few missiles into gun shops in the US because they were arming drug gangs you would hear us screaming like bloody murder. Of course, when we do it, it's all nice and moral and just because WE are totally full of shit.
Unfortunately morality in war depends on which side of the bomb you are on.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ad/250396/
