Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 05:19:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?  (Read 4005 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,095
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


« on: August 05, 2015, 02:55:34 PM »

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

Yes, this. Although under this logic war would never be justified, there's something about dropping a bomb on innocent civilians that irks me. During wartime, there's always going to be deaths of innocent civilians, but people don't go into war with the intent to harm civilian populations (unless its total war). The difference between dropping a bomb and going in with an invasion is that dropping the bomb is knowingly going to kill civilians, and to me that's the deep end of immoral.
I have to agree with this, though I don't think the option should be off the table if a dry-run of the atomic bombings on an underpopulated Pacific island failed to scare the Japanese into surrendering. While I oppose war, I also believe that we must win the fights that we must fight. And WWII was definitely (at least the Pacific War) one of those wars.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.