Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cicada_3301
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could be. This is this, now is now.

You are really inept at the topic.

Remind me of the triumphalism post.
 
No, it relied on untrained young pilots. Find me a child in BLOSSOMS IN THE WIND.
 
GKMotley said:
You are really inept at the topic.
Click to expand...
Where am I wrong?

They were an island nation with no real navy left.

They were short on virtually every material on needed to make war by summer 1945.

The Soviets Had pushed into the Kuril Islands with no intention of stopping.

Records survive to this day both of Japanese leadership discussing surrender and of Allied generals considering the end of the war “a foregone conclusion” by summer 1945?
“The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
General “Hap” Arnold
“It was a mistake… [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.”
Adm. William “Bull” Halsey

Please. Which of these aren’t true?
 
Last edited:
Tell me GKM, Why are you right and General Arnold and Admiral Halsey wrong?
 
This is of course true. Indiscriminate “area bombings” with conventional bombs are immoral as well. Biological weapons is also a good example of a war tactic that is immoral based on the fact that it does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.
 
SURRENDER. it is an easy concept. Except, apparently for you. And, of course, for the Japanese before the 9-10 Aug gozen kaigan ,.

You are new to the concept. You can extend the list.

It is not I who am wrong, vs. Halsey. It is the scholars who do know just what was happening in Japan, at the level that could result in an end to the war, and when and why, who are correct.

Try the titles above.
 
Ah, so I’m just misunderstanding the generals and admirals who seem to think we didn’t need to drop the bombs. They really meant to say that the did the right thing, but it either came out funny or I read it incorrectly.

Again, you seem to think yourself a better authority than original sources.

This should be cause for a touch of cognitive dissonance for a rational mind…
 
Last edited:
The Japanese called such pilot trainees. And not all Kamikazes were from the lowest level of the trainees.
 
No. You’re not exhausting the list of such people. Indicates you are a neophyte at this.
 
GKMotley said:
The Japanese called such pilot trainees. And not all Kamikazes were from the lowest level of the trainees.
Click to expand...
Hume said:
lol, hey, fine. Then they were down to trainee-kids. I’m fine with that.
Click to expand...
Why are you quibbling about this? What on earth difference would it make? If your enemy’s government is convincing people to go on suicide missions, young or old, I think this makes a fairly strong statement about what sort of enemy you’re dealing with.

Catholic theology does not change what are and are not moral tactics by whether or not the enemy has gone off their nut, or are demonstrably evil, or are stupid beyond the demands of self-preservation, or any of the rest, excepting maybe that we are a bit more protective of people who pose a threat to us because they have innocently taken leave of their senses or been lead to do things by a manipulative party. Whatever the case, the presence of sociopathic high command would not give a reason to attack innocent people who aren’t making these decisions and who pose no immediate threat. (I mean the civilians in Nagasaki, obviously, and not people in airplanes on suicide missions.)

These are not far-away nit-picking how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions, nor are they far-away Japan-in-1945 questions.

These are North-Korea-in-2020 questions, friends. These are questions of vital interest in the Middle East, as well. That’s what this discussion is really about for us.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Whatever the case, the presence of sociopathic high command would not give a reason to attack innocent people …
Click to expand...
In Catholic thinking, nothing ever justifies directly attacking innocent people.

However, we may morally justify an act in which we tolerate the unintended and indirect death of innocent persons. The determination of the proportion of the good to the evil effects of the act is a prudential one. We can disagree with the precision of another’s calculation but not his moral right to act on his own calculation.
 
o_mlly said:
In Catholic thinking, nothing ever justifies directly attacking innocent people.

However, we may morally justify an act in which we tolerate the unintended and indirect death of innocent persons. The determination of the proportion of the good to the evil effects of the act is a prudential one. We can disagree with the precision of another’s calculation but not his moral right to act on his own calculation.
Click to expand...
The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not meant to be indirect attacks on the civilian population any more than it was an unintended side effect when Buckingham Palace was hit during the Blitz. These were all strikes on the resolve and morale of the populace at large.
 
On the decision makers, almost totally.

That it would have a similar effect on the people generally was negligible.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
On the decision makers, almost totally.

That it would have a similar effect on the people generally was negligible.
Click to expand...
I don’t know; I think the Germans knew the value they’d have realized if the British people if the Blitz had made the people anxious to sue for peace. (He knew it took popularity with the people to remain Prime Minister.)
 
Last edited:
Well, in that respect, yes.

The Tokyo raids, in terms of deaths/injuries and property damage (the latter being the factor most immediately visible to the populace) were quite similar to Hiroshima. There was no restlessness from the general public. The general public were not permitted restlessness. And the general public, unlike the system in GB, had no part in the choosing or tenure of the ruling clique. Or statesmen, if you will.
 
Hume said:
To be sure, every ideologue I’ve met has a reading list that will guarantee I “see the truth”. Granted, this is usually religious in nature, but it’s always ideological.

Should I ever have need for "The Nuclear Bombing of Japan - A Jingoist’s Perspective, you’ll be the first on my list.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem argument.
If you cannot credibly argue your case, you need to critically examine it.
 
@StudentMI, In WWII we let all the people of the bombed cities know multiple months in advance that we were bombing them. More U.S. and Japanese people would have died if we didn’t end the war then and there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top