bazmeistergen said:
Kantor said:
hallowedbeeddie said:
Kantor said:
Lostplanet22 said:
What you are saying is that when someone murders someone we should murder his daughter?
Yeah sorry I am confused...
|
You can't compare a country of 100 million people to a single man. The country does something, you punish the country. But again, the atomic bombs weren't punishment; war is war. The atomic bombs were a means of forcing Japan to surrender. Not ideal, but the best America could have done, given the circumstances. Do remember that they had no idea what this bomb did, except cause a massive explosion. Which is why they never used it again.
|
it doesnt matter if you kill person or 100 thounds, you would still be a murderer. just 1 life is unique and irreplaceable
|
Ideally, you kill nobody.
But if you have a choice between killing 300,000 and killing over a million, you choose the lower number. Whether they are civilians or soldiers isn't really relevant.
|
That's assuming that there was that choice in the first place, of course.
Perhaps the decision-makers (subconsciously) didn't care about the Japanese overtures for peace (which were significant) because they had already in their minds decided that the Japanese weren't serious - probably because (subconsciously) they wanted to use the bomb - after all, they had just invested a lot of money in it and had several 'good' reasons to use them. The orthodox/revisionist/post-revisionist debate over this is quite interesting, but it is clearly more complex than just saying they did it to save lives.
|
I do indeed think there were people in America thinking that way, but can't believe the decision to drop the bomb was because it cost them a lot of money to develop it.
