Well, what is moral and what is just aren't exactly the same thing, but Aquinas laid down his idea of what constitutes a just war a long time ago. I think that might have been what Obama was shooting for. Here are the factors:

1. It has to be waged by the state, and not individuals. War concerns the well-being of all the citizens, not just a few citizens, so it's the state's role to decide when and how to fight a war.

2. The target of war has to have it coming for some reason. "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

3. The aggressors must have good intentions, rather than being motivated by greed, bloodthirst, or "cruel vengeance."

Other thinkers have refined the idea and added new criteria over the centuries. Such as these:

4. Proportionality. The benefits of the war have to outweigh the costs of the war. You don't send in the bombers just so that you can get your captured pilot back.

5. The aggressor must have a reasonable chance of success without using disproportionate measures.

6. Last resort. All chances at a peaceful resolution of the problem need to be exhausted.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for over 60 years.  Mohandas Gandhi one of the most deserving people ever couldn't even get one posthumously.

It's a rather sordid story. Hirohito mostly wanted to surrender before the nukes dropped, Japan knew the writing on the wall. The problem was that the army didn't want to surrender, and Hirohito had let the army (through it's use of right-wing terrorism) grow too powerful in the years before and during the war.

As we understood it, the bombings did save lives. We saw a chance to end the war quicker, i'll agree with that, but if we had known the tremendous internal pressure that the Japanese government was under, it could have worked itself out if we had applied pressure in other ways.

A couple thoughts on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Aside from the speculative outcome of the pacific war, it demonstrated the terrible power of nuclear weapons to the world. I wonder if the world would have been less reluctant to use nuclear weapons if we had not seen the horrifying outcome of such weapons. The first nuclear strike might have simply been delayed to a time when larger bombs had been designed and more people had them.

I wonder if the cold war might not have been so cold if Hiroshima hadn't scared the pants off of everybody.

NATO Vs Serbia to protect the Kosovans was a moral war. It was with the sole intention to prevent genocide, all missions were planned to destroy the Serbian militia without harming civillians (through the bombings of things like bridges/trains that provided access to Kosovo and military bases), and not a single NATO troop died.

All-in-all, I'd say it was one of the most successful and morally justified campaigns that we have ever embarked upon, and it's success is probably what led the likes of Tony Blair to be so "eager" to support the likes of Iraq/Afghanistan (both of which, btw, I support).

I'm well aware that the Nuclear bombs probably saved lives in the end. But to argue the use of such a destructive weapon is moral is a bit silly. Remeber all I was saying is that it probably wasn't a great thing to do morally, I never said it wasn't justifiable.

Just the creation of such weapons was a tremendously "immoral" thing to do. Yes the war with Japan would have been bloodier. But if the Nuke wasn't invented we wouldn't have a way of nearly completely wiping out human life in an instant either. The chance of global nuclear war surely puts the weapon squarly within the "Immoral" camp (along with its inventors). As I said in my earlier post, I'm arguing that in the end both sides did horrible things. Its not like the allies were the shining examples history tries to make them out to be in many cases.

Of course the point that the use of Nukes in Japan deterred countries from using them again is a very good one.

Of course, on the other end, Farm, if we did not have nukes, who's to say that we wouldn't of had more wars between the major powers, as there were no fears of MAD?

Was it Ghandi who said an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?

Any way, perspective determines perception. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Wars are fought by the poor for the profits of the rich. Morally justified, lol any thing can be justified, right?

As for Obama and the Peace Prize, I think it was given to him on the basis on what he 'could' do. Still he was undeserving. Especially since he was elected to pretty much undo the mess 8 Years of Bush gave the US. And it seems he is just continuing what Bush started.

But he can't do too much in ways of change or he'll end up like JFK.

Saying one hasn't happened yet.... vs one can't happen is two different things.

I still want to know how Nobomba won the peace prize. Sending 30,000 people to Afghanastan with guns doesn't sound peaceful to me.