mai said:
|
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.
|
1) Your saying the bombings weren't nessassary. However it was one of three nessassary options.
The other two options were
Invade by land, more japanese soldiers die, more citizensed forced to fight die and more people starve.
Blockade, more soldiers die, more citzens die
2) That's not true at all. Lets go through this
A) It is intended to help win the war. Well yeah this was basically the plan to end the war. Check.
B) It must be an attack on a military target. Both bombs were targeted at military targets inside the cities. Check.
C) The civilian losses must not be excessive compared to the expected military advantage.
The military advantage expected? Winning the war because a show of weapons that big a country would have to be insane to ignore.
The number of civilians dead? Much less then if we didn't win the war that way.
Check.
3) Doesn't change the fact that you stated your opinion as if an expert and dismissed other opinions.
