Will a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction Be Used This Decade?

[mai]

Kasz216 said:

1) Point 2.  You are holding the bombings to a higher standard then the other 2 options.  It's a logical fallacy that assumes that option A is less moral then B or C without any factual basis.  You are the one using the "shield" of personal opinion.

2) One of the three options was a military nessessity, and the one they went with was by far the one  that had the best consequences for all.  That is a fact. 

3) Furthermore to now say don't care about personal opinion itself is hypocritical since by your same judgement the first statement you made was itself, an opinion.

1) Unable to comprehend. Please, clarify.

2) International Court of Justice would like to disagree... well, if it existed at the time and had jurisdiction over such cases. Military necessity isn't some vague substance of moral kind, it's pretty defined legal term, which couldn't be applied to certain actions. In this particular case consequences (including but not limited to massive deaths of civilians, which by no means weren't collateral) absolutely overweight any military necessity. By modern standards people responsible for nuclear bombing of Japan are war criminals.

3) My attitude towards bombings as immoral act is my personal opinion, things like a) decision to bomb was based on matters other than morality, b) weren't militaty necessity - are facts.