Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:12:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
503 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
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 was futile. The campaign we expected to
have to prosecute would have resulted in FAR more civilian casualties,
and would probably have left so little left in Japan that it would not
have been worth it to us to help Japan rebuild.
> 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?
From their standpoint yes. The question, when moralities conflict, is
whose is better? Can Osama's morality be equal to ours? His says (as far
as I understand it) "anything non-Islam is evil." My morality says that
so long as your actions do not conflict with mine, you are free to hold
whatever beliefs you wish.
> 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.
I think I would agree that using extremely unnecessary force in war is
terrorism, or at least something very similar. The debate then centers
on whether the force used was extremely unnecessary.
> 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.
Japan's surrender was certainly necessary. I think rebuilding Japan was
necessary (I think the results of the past 50 years worth of wars bear
that out, the once defeated Germany and Japan are both successful
members of the world community, everywhere else we have waged war since
is either outright not a part of the world community, or is struggling
mightily). I think a decisive end to the war was necessary so that we
would have the willpower to do the rebuilding, and so that the Japanese
civilians would accept that their emperor was wrong so they would accept
our rebuilding efforts.
A demonstration of the bomb would not have accomplished a decisive
victory. The Japanese civilians would have seen nothing about it. Sure
the government might have accepted the destructive capability, but would
they have unconditionally surrendered? Would they have surrendered
immediately, or would they have strung out the surrender while quietly
rebuilding their power?
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
