Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:10:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
529 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right"
> > argument when it all boiled down to it-- but again, maybe I'm mistaken.
>
> No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon
> for the job",
Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate".
I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty
gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in
the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that when/if we get into it. Yes
it's related.
Which I think leaves "appropriate". Now, I'm usually the 1st to admit that
there are circumstances allowing just about anything to be justifiable-- I
think we'll agree on that. Certain borderline-ridiculous situations can
almost *always* exist to make just about any action "appropriate".
But in order to make that judgement, you presume that the benefit outweighs
the cost. Exactly what benefits were there in the attack on
Nagasaki/Hiroshima? And more importantly, what other alternatives did we
have? You mentioned that we were hitting military(ish) areas that were
within each of these cities-- could we have hit them any other way? Heck,
did we NEED to even hit them? From everything I've seen, Japan was crippled
to nigh on useless before the attack. The idea behind knocking out military
positions is usually so that they don't pose a threat. Did they pose a
threat at that point? Certainly doesn't sound like it.
> as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a
> pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean on that
> particular statement to support anything.
Which is exactly why I called it that. I know you have a tendancy to go
against such (while I'll tend for "might makes amoral" but you don't opt for
that either), but when it comes down to it, it sounds like the argument
you're making. More later.
> > > > > I'll discuss that if you like, but not whether using nukes in WW II was
> > > > > terrorism. It wasn't. (I again say shame on you for even suggesting it
> > > > > was).
>
> OK, what in that do you disagree with, specifically? I would say that if it
> can be demonstrated that if any particular weapon is the most effective and
> appropriate weapon under valid reasoning based on the facts available at the
> time, using it in a war that pits good against evil is not terrorism.
>
> Would you agree with that premise? That reduces the argument a bit. It also
> reduces the scope of the argument if you disagree with the premise.
You had me and then you lost me. Not so much as to say you made me
misunderstand :) I agreed with it until you got to the "good against evil"
part. Who are you to say that the Japanese were evil and that we were good?
Might makes right?
Otherwise, I agree with the premise. I just don't agree with the application
of "appropriate" as indicated above.
To turn it around, hasn't Osama's movement (even though they don't represent
a country) been at war with the United States? Don't they believe that
they're good and we're evil? And when considering bang-for-your-buck, wasn't
the attack on the WTC an excellent use of capital towards the end of
stopping the US? I mean, it's not going to succeed 100%, but then again, I'd
argue nearly NOTHING within their power could do so. They used the "most
appropriate weapon" at their disposal, yes? Is it no longer terrorism?
I'm merely finding that using your logic as I understand it, one could see
the attack on WTC as a non-terrorist act, which I don't agree with. Hence,
either I'm wrong (it's *NOT* a terrorist act), I'm wrong (I don't understand
your logic), or you're wrong (your logic is flawed). I'll opt for the latter
two.
> > And also:
> > > I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings
> > > were necessary.
> >
> > Unless of course:
> > - in the former case, you define terrorism quite differently than I (or
> > define the motive of the US/"the terrorists" differently than I).
> > - in the latter case, you define the ends of "necessary" to be something
> > rather atrociously unlike anything I would have deemed as the ends.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that the above follows from what I said that precedes it.
Just to note-- these aren't what I presume you to believe-- they're merely
"outs". If the above are true, my point is made mute. But to clarify on what
they mean:
The 1st referrs to whether or not our attack constituted terrorism. The use
of overly inappropriate weapons on inappropriate targets in the name of
"good" I find to be terroristic. If you don't agree, then I'm forced to
simply disagree with you on the definition of terrorism.
Also (1st cont.) if you define the motives of the US differently, I'm forced
to simply disagree on motive. IE if you think the US wasn't doing it in the
name of "good" and was defending itself, etc, I'll merely disagree with you
on the facts at hand-- again, a disputable area, more easily backed up with
evidence, but equally disputable.
The 2nd referrs to your statement that the bombings were "necessary".
"Necessity" necessarily implies an end-- "Necessary for *what*?" If you
believe that having the Japanese people terrorized (not just citizens, mind
you, but authority figures as well) by such power was a necessary
prerequisite to their surrender, then again, my point would be mute. I would
have to concede that for those goals, the bombings were necessary. I just
wouldn't agree with the goals.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace recognize that further fighting (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Either is possible. (...) No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon for the job", as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
