The Nuking of Japan

[Shell B]

Can it not also be argued that not engaging in a strategic action (that by definition saves manpower and resources) is immoral?

Sure. You can have to choose between two immoral actions.

Dropping nukes was good because dropping firebombs was considered good. Just like dropping any munition is considered 'good'.

But, it isn't "good." None of it is "good." It's an act of war. Perhaps it is sometimes necessary, but never good.

You've failed to demonstrate the moral difference between a nuclear warhead and a conventional firebomb.

I did not realize that I had to. The question is not was it more or less moral.

Nor have you disputed the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both legitimate military targets.

I didn't realize that I had to dispute that, Syn. Nonetheless, there were legitimate military targets in those cities. The cities themselves were like any other cities.

A great many people perished in Tokyo due to the firebombs. Many died in Dresden from the same.

I'm sorry Syn. I never said that those things were okay, so this is irrelevant.

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?

Yes, thanks to the fact that I never said killing massive amounts of people with anything is ever moral. Furthermore, the implications of nuclear weapons are far more than the body count and I think you know that. Fallout is real and regular explosives do not produce a fallout.

[Autumnlicious]

Usually when one talks about the immorality of certain actions, it is discussed with the intent that there was a better solution, objectively or subjectively.

In that case, I'd like to then ask, given your reply, what was the better action then in your mind?

The Imperial Japanese asked to surrender with conditions, including that they keep their government, are not tried for war crimes and effect little to no change on Japanese society.

I can see how that request is intolerable to the Allies, especially given that the Imperial Japanese fought tooth and nail (using suicide bombers) for every strip of land given.

Would you allow their conditions to stand? Would you have chosen differently?

I am curious as to what you intend to change, if that was possible.

[Anomalocaris]

There is no such thing as good or bad. Only better or worse.

[Minimalist]

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/

[Anomalocaris]

. Nonetheless, there were legitimate military targets in those cities. The cities themselves were like any other cities. .

I have to say the practical choices with practical weapon accuracy of the era are:

A) the military installation's location in a city makes those military targets illegitimate to attack

B) the city's location around the military target makes the city a legitimate target to attack.

Distinguishing in morality what can not be distinguished with feasible weapon accuracy might be very nice for a professorship in the department of ethics, it has no real function if the concerns is to actually get things done in a war.

. Yes, thanks to the fact that I never said killing massive amounts of people with anything is ever moral. Furthermore, the implications of nuclear weapons are far more than the body count and I think you know that. Fallout is real and regular explosives do not produce a fallout.

1. If by not killing massive amounts of people, even more massive amount of people will die, then I would say it would be rather immoral to allow the larger amount to die to save the smaller amount

2. Those implication you mention were man made, and were more importantly made after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so they have no impact on evaluting the morality of the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The notion that Atomic bombs were "Unconventional" was an invention that came after America discovered we could be on the receiving end. Prior to that we regarded atom bomb as just like normal bombs, only individually big and more convenient to deliver for the same effect. We planned to drop a few as tactical weapons on the Chinese during Korean war, for example.

[jonb]

I want to re-frame the question, if that is not too presumptive.
Once we move away form blaming individuals, to assigning group responsibility any thought of justice and morals gets lost.

Think of this issue, I as a westerner have benefited from the invasion of Iraq because of the more stable oil prices it has brought about. I marched against the war but to no avail. Should I be seen in any way as needing to compensate for my part in it as a member of a NATO country and that I have benefited from it. Can there ever be group responsibility?

Now the only question can be was Truman a war criminal? For me the answer is no because there was no alternate that he had that would seem to cost less lives.

[Anomalocaris]

There certainly can be group responsibility, particularly if one takes a consequentialist view.

The military exploit the efficacy of group responsibility all the time during training and in establishing Esprit de corps.

[jonb]

There certainly can be group responsibility, particularly if one takes a consequentialist view.

The military exploit the efficacy of group responsibility all the time during training and in establishing Esprit de corps.

Quite, but how would you deal with it justly?

Blame the Japs, or blame the Yanks and Limes?

[cratehorus]

Greenland was settled by Vikings. *sigh* Why is it that people the government of one country killing civilians excuses another?

Yeah, the number of civilians our side lost was tremendous by comparison. Does that excuse it? Say a man kills another man's children, does that give the other man leave to kill the first man's children? No. You can make excuses all you want, but we know a "they're meaner and did it first" argument would not fly in any non-war scenario. So, choose a side that you want to win all you want. Everyone does. What I am saying is you do not have to excuse atrocities by pointing to other atrocities as if it somehow fucking negates it. Revenge is not a good argument. They were worse is not a good argument. I think you know that.

well yes if you go back far enough every flag has had atleast some blood shed. they probably wouldn't have a flag if they didn't.....

....But saying we should "remember" or take into account, the crimes the Chinese committed against Japan, is the same thing as saying we should remeber all the horrible things the native americans did to the european settlers, I do imagine there were a few angry native americans who tortured or brutally killed maybe even innocent europeans, but compared to the hundreds of millions of deaths, rapes, ensalvement, and even cannibalism, something that bewildered most native tribes (they couldn't understand why europeans were digging for gold instead of planting food). I think it's fair to say that we CAN excuse whatever the native americans did, as well as what China did to Japense soldiers

......and after all, we all come from africa so technically were all responsible for all the violence in world history

[Anomalocaris]

There certainly can be group responsibility, particularly if one takes a consequentialist view.

The military exploit the efficacy of group responsibility all the time during training and in establishing Esprit de corps.

Quite, but how would you deal with it justly?

Blame the Japs, or blame the Yanks and Limes?

Blame is a tool, not an end.

Forget about "justly" as some sort of principle. Think of it as an regrettable foible or eccentricity that may be necessary to humor at times, and can be safely ignore at other times. Keep eyes on the ball of acheiving the least bad overall consequence.