|
On November 02 2008 18:05 oneofthem wrote:
some defenders of this action seem interested in defending an american personality, to the effect of being able to say "america was doing ok!" or something similar. they are not interested in the merits of the case, but rather defend all aspects of the decision. this is just a childish way of seeing things and not deserving of a direct response.
I'm assuming this was directed at me, but interact, please.
For the record, I do not identify completely with being "American". My statement had nothing to do with defending the concept of "America", or blind patriotism. My stance is the bombing was justifiable because
1. Japan represented an "other" and thus has less value than my own inclusionary group
2. This "other" attacked my group, on their own interests (an American embargo, cutting off needed supplies necessary to assimilate the Orient into a Japanese dominated sphere of influence, IIRC from basic 6th grade history)
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
I wonder if people on their high horse in this thread even considered that, if given a chance, Japan would have done the same thing. If you break it down this (like every war) is simply a competition for resources on a massive scale; theres no room for bleeding hearts, only rationality and the bottom line.
On an emotional level, I'm glad Japan was nuked. Hearing stories about grandmothers getting raped (including my own) and babies being bayoneted by Japanese soldiers for sport leaves me with little sympathy for their citizenry, though I must say I'm grateful for having a Nintendo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no it was not directed at you. fig_newbie.
if we are adopting the "listen to the priestly caste" route, read rawls' piece on hiroshima. although i am not the greatest fan of rawls, he is the best standard of mainstream acceptability. you can find a general outline of basic problems with the decision there.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
It's very simple: anyone who thinks it was justified is retarded. This doesn't even need discussion, I am amazed people actually have the patience to explain why it wasn't justified, hats off.
|
The only justifiable reason is that because we can, and thats no reason at all.
No it was not justified, but at time it probably seemed like a good idea. 2 bombs for ending the war totally and decisively in a much shorter amount of time? Less resources spent but faster solution? Definitely something that should be considered during time of war.
|
Jesus fuck. This thread is terrible.
|
On November 02 2008 17:59 fig_newbie wrote:
I'd rather kill an army of foreign children than lose a single one of MY soldiers.
You are crazy dude.
|
I haven`t read the whole thread, but the percentages really scare me. Anyone who thinks that droping these bombs is justified is brain-washed.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
The only thing I have difficulty with is the context really. If those were the rules of war (that civillians are open game), then perhaps it was justifiable in its context. I'm not sure, the scale of it is so huge that even then it might not be justifiable, in the same way that a war between two nations could be justifiable, but genocide never is. I don't know, morality has always been the most difficult thing to think logically about for me.
|
On November 02 2008 18:28 Carnac wrote:
It's very simple: anyone who thinks it was justified is retarded. This doesn't even need discussion, I am amazed people actually have the patience to explain why it wasn't justified, hats off.
"You're retarded and I'm not going to explain why because it's obvious."
|
No, no and ever again no.
You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war.
I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
|
On November 02 2008 18:36 GinNtoniC wrote:
No, no and ever again no.
You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war.
I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
What if it was a Total War? Total War means anything goes, resources, lands, cities, civilians, everything.
Fire bombing is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 18:27 oneofthem wrote:
the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places.
It's a response to those that say some acts of war are tolerable while others are not. It's not a way to find that it is ethical, but it reaffirms Clausewitz's famous and true point. War has a tendency to become total war. I will be shocked when we get a generation of leaders who doesn't feel that way.
And the reason for taking an American perspective is because its historically useless to take any others in this discussion. We're looking for rationale to drop the bombs, so the only pertinent information and opinions are what was at hand to the NSC at the time.
In this specific situation it might be easy to take the humanitarian cause, but I highly doubt most people feel that way when it comes to more complex issues.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:39 blue_arrow wrote:
Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
Please, please, please provide your reasoning, whether it be objective or subjective...
of course not, you really need to ask?
+ Show Spoiler +- murdering civilians, women and children in any war is just simply wrong (and stupid for too many reasons to list)
- there were other more "shocking" targets, with less civilian deaths, that would have had same effect
- it created a dark shameful stain in US and human history
- war is always failure
still the above reasons are hardly as important as the this one
- simple human nature, once u use such a weapon upon another, it is only a matter of time until its used on u..
|
On November 02 2008 18:41 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 18:36 GinNtoniC wrote:
No, no and ever again no.
You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war.
I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon. What if it was a Total War? Total War means anything goes, resources, lands, cities, civilians, everything. Fire bombing is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
What if it was Total Mega Giga Universe War? This means anything goes, moon, plantes, sun, black holes, aliens, zergs, everything.
Being Yamato guned is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
|
Australia1169 Posts
GinNtoniC said: You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war.
Why not?
GinNtoniC said: I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
No more cowardly than the invention of the spear was against unarmed men.
I do see where you're coming from, however. War is become more and more distant as technology advances, and killing people has never been easier or less emotionally challenging than in an era where pressing buttons can destroy thousands of lives. Not that is always the case, there's still plenty of room for people to look their victims in the eyes as they die :/
|
Appealing to total war simply changes the debate to whether total war is justified or not and leaves many of the arguments the same.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 18:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
So just following orders preserves one's innocence? I completely disagree with that.
|
On November 02 2008 18:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
Maybe we should define exactly what "justification" means in the context of this thread?
Also, nations are not fictitious personalities. I don't know how else to say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
