Subject:
|
broad brush terrorists (was Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:35:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
592 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > > So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the
> > > > > case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their
> > > > > subjective judgment of us?
> > > >
> > > > Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument.
> > >
> > > Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't
> > > think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a
> > > moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless
> > > your ends are specifically moral. And further it also doesn't play into
> > > whether the action was a terrorist act or not.
> >
> > I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means.
>
> 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 wouldn't agree that those were the ends we were trying to
> reach.
>
> > So terrorism, I think, by definition, is immoral, and taints the outcome of
> > whatever it supports.
>
> Wow. I can't disagree more.
I could, but I do not agree that terrorism is immoral. It depends on what
the fight is against. There are instances where terrorists get broad based
support for their actions where they are viewed as fighting against
"immoral" regimes.
If we paint with a broad brush, could the European resistance movements
during WW2 not be defined as terrorists?
Scott A
> Of course I hold that absoloutely no action
> exists that is necessarily attached to a moral judgement. I mean, suppose
> that the only way to make Japan surrender was to frighten its people? While,
> yes, it isn't a great solution, it would be a better solution than having to
> kill them all, yes? Again, this is of course hypothetical.
>
> > That by the way puts the onus on me more than ever to demonstrate that the
> > a-bomb usage wasn't terrorism and wasn't immoral, else our "good" taking on
> > the Axis "evil" is tainted nonetheless as not completely moral.
> >
> > I just dug that hole a little deeper. But I had to to keep honest.
>
> I think you did. What definition of terrorism are you using? Let's bring a
> little more focus on that. I don't think I've seen a good definition from
> you yet on that front, unless I missed it...
>
> > What calculus do you use here? Is a US life == an enemy alien life? or is it
> > worth more, if you're the US commander? How much more? What ratio?
>
> That is indeed a question one must ask-- and it in and of itself is where we
> can eventually agree to disagree. But I think the definition of an enemy
> life needs to be expounded a little. How do you rate enemy civilians vs.
> enemy military? Should Osama be seeking your blood specifically for being an
> American? Should you move to a country whose political actions you agree
> with 100% so that you can be held just as morally reprhensible for your
> country's actions as the government itself (Libertaria?)?
>
> Also, to what extent were US lives at threat during this stage of the war?
> What sort of continuing threat did the Japanese pose at this stage? From
> everything I've heard, virtually nil. Accepting that, doesn't the equasion
> simplify into nearly only the value of an enemy's life? and more importantly
> a civilian's life?
>
> > We were at war with an implacable enemy that was refusing to surrender
> > unconditionally (a prerequisite for restructuring the country so it would
> > not bother others with violent aggression for a very long time, something we
> > have succeeded at)
>
> While they wouldn't surrender unconditionally, it sounds like they might
> have surrendered under other circumstances. Why not try diplomacy before
> lofting two A-bombs on them?
>
> > When you factor what the perfidious Soviets were going to be doing at the
> > time as well, the equation tips even farther.
>
> That I'll concede with. But while granted I don't know a lot about the
> politics involved therein, I still don't think it justifies the dropping of
> the bombs. And even if it did justify 1, I still don't think it justified
> the 2nd.
>
> > Nevertheless I see the use of these weapons as the most expedient
> > and effective way to have ended the suffering of WW II, and not as a
> > terrorist act.
>
> Certainly they were effective and expedient. I dunno about "best choice"
> though. But I still stand by saying it was a terrorist act.
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
