 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, you said "completely" closed minded, not me. I don't recall saying "completely." (...) Sobs of utter appreciation, my friend, that the Great and Powerful Lar would so generously grace us with his fair hand of understanding. I am beset with (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It tends to be obscure, but there was never a decision to drop Bomb 1, a pause, and then a decision to drop Bomb 2. The decision was made to drop two bombs. Were both bombs necessary? Maybe not - they may have eventually surrendered anyway (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Oh, that was just sarcasm about the last time you accused me of over-analyzing a situation down to many constituent parts and rating those parts as nigh on irrelevant. Hence the little ';)'. (...) You just hit the nail on the head, didn't you? (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Still, my point stands then? Whether or not they were cowardly is irrelevant to whether it was terrorism, yes? (...) !! Sure there is. Attempting to get someone/a group of people to do something by making them respond to terror that you induce (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, at least I don't parse it that way. Feel free to diagram the sentence though, so I can see it! (...) The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't considered all those factors? You can handle the complexity, I think. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) In your defense, though, I would assert that it's not necessary (possible?) to be completely moral. However, in a field of several choices, the greatest "net good" outcome is preferable to less "net good" outcomes. We can be criticized after (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It would still be cowardly for them to fly their own planes into the buildings because they would be making an unprovoked attack against innocent and unsuspecting civilians on the civilians' home soil during a time when the home nation was at (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Isn't that what I said? (...) Now you're the one who's going for the complicated explanation ;) I could draw it out further and say isn't one of Osama's major "justifications" with the US the fact that we dropped the Bomb on the Japanese as an (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out immoral anyway. If the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
