...there were military and industrial targets at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course there were.
We did not drop the bombs there purely to kill the populations of those two cities.
Mixed bag. We dropped the nukes to...drop the nukes. That was the whole point. And we did so with full knowledge that we were nuking civilians. Does the fact that there were also military targets make it any better? No.
Furthermore, in total war, civilian populations are fair targets, because they grow the food that feed the armies, and work in the factories that make armaments.
Yeah, but if one side decides it's total war, that's still evil. You're welcome to argue it's a justified evil, but it's still intentional mass murder of civilians. You can't be the "good guys," demand the other side play by the rules, while breaking all those same rules and murdering a bunch of civilians.
This is without even getting into whether Japan deserved it, which they most certainly did.
Japanese citizens =/= Japan. And, as I said in another comment, if the every day people of a country are to be held accountable for atrocities committed by their government, America - as well as most of the rest of the world - would be an irradiated wasteland.
As I also said in the other comment, the victors write history. The only reason we got away with that shit is because we won. If someone had done the same shit to us, it would be an atrocity the likes of which had never been seen. If we'd done it to Japan, but they'd still won...atrocity. If Germany had done it, but lost...atrocity. If Germany had done it but won...totally justified, they had to do it, it was for the greater good.
Again, you can say it's justified if you want, but it's still evil. And if anyone but the winners had done it, everyone would say it was evil. Very, very, very evil.
You can argue it was because they didn't have the technology, and that's true, but Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan never did anything on that scale. And, again, if they had...people would rightly call it absolute evil.
There were many military reasons to drop those two bombs, and going right to the morality of the decision is shallow and stupid.
No way. Humans have largely, and should strive to, hold themselves to higher standards than mere necessity. You can look at something, see it as militarily advantageous, and still ask if it's moral to do so? After the fact you can certainly criticize immoral decisions, too. Immoral is immoral.
I'm surprised that you're one of the only (few?) people in this thread making this point:
If Germany had done it but won...totally justified
As we saw with covid -- giving untested vaccines to 3yr olds -- 'ethics' mean absolutely nothing to the globalists.
Germany's an odd case -- they had developed Sarin, then the most potent nerve gas in history, but of course, being honourable, didn't use it on their enemies... This despite the countless lives it could have saved!!!
They also didn't use it during the holofrost for, you know, reasons.
It's also interesting because, on the flipside, Israel's main crime is mere recency. You can say their actions are evil or not. But their main optics issue is just that they're doing it now. If they'd done it one hundred years ago...ancient past, who cares?
To be clear, for the record, I condemn what Israel is doing. But it really is a matter of victors writing history, and we in the present living through history. What Israel is doing is totally barbaric. But we accept a lot of barbarism from those that won in the past. It's an interesting double standard, and an interesting thought experiment.
And, yeah, Germany is a bit of a weird juxtaposition. Germany certainly committed atrocities (everyone did), but it seems they could have done a lot worse, but held back. For whatever reasons. And, from everything I've heard, Hitler absolutely despised chemical weapons, having served in WW1. Some claim that's not true, and I certainly can't claim to know, but whether for tactical or moral reasons, it's a fact he didn't use them.
I'm not even picking sides here, but if the Axis had won, the Allies would have been villainized for numerous crimes they did commit, and numerous crimes they didn't, while the Axis's crimes would be swept under the rug. It's just how things work.
Of course there were.
Mixed bag. We dropped the nukes to...drop the nukes. That was the whole point. And we did so with full knowledge that we were nuking civilians. Does the fact that there were also military targets make it any better? No.
Yeah, but if one side decides it's total war, that's still evil. You're welcome to argue it's a justified evil, but it's still intentional mass murder of civilians. You can't be the "good guys," demand the other side play by the rules, while breaking all those same rules and murdering a bunch of civilians.
Japanese citizens =/= Japan. And, as I said in another comment, if the every day people of a country are to be held accountable for atrocities committed by their government, America - as well as most of the rest of the world - would be an irradiated wasteland.
As I also said in the other comment, the victors write history. The only reason we got away with that shit is because we won. If someone had done the same shit to us, it would be an atrocity the likes of which had never been seen. If we'd done it to Japan, but they'd still won...atrocity. If Germany had done it, but lost...atrocity. If Germany had done it but won...totally justified, they had to do it, it was for the greater good.
Again, you can say it's justified if you want, but it's still evil. And if anyone but the winners had done it, everyone would say it was evil. Very, very, very evil.
You can argue it was because they didn't have the technology, and that's true, but Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan never did anything on that scale. And, again, if they had...people would rightly call it absolute evil.
No way. Humans have largely, and should strive to, hold themselves to higher standards than mere necessity. You can look at something, see it as militarily advantageous, and still ask if it's moral to do so? After the fact you can certainly criticize immoral decisions, too. Immoral is immoral.
I'm surprised that you're one of the only (few?) people in this thread making this point:
As we saw with covid -- giving untested vaccines to 3yr olds -- 'ethics' mean absolutely nothing to the globalists.
Germany's an odd case -- they had developed Sarin, then the most potent nerve gas in history, but of course, being honourable, didn't use it on their enemies... This despite the countless lives it could have saved!!!
They also didn't use it during the holofrost for, you know, reasons.
It's also interesting because, on the flipside, Israel's main crime is mere recency. You can say their actions are evil or not. But their main optics issue is just that they're doing it now. If they'd done it one hundred years ago...ancient past, who cares?
To be clear, for the record, I condemn what Israel is doing. But it really is a matter of victors writing history, and we in the present living through history. What Israel is doing is totally barbaric. But we accept a lot of barbarism from those that won in the past. It's an interesting double standard, and an interesting thought experiment.
And, yeah, Germany is a bit of a weird juxtaposition. Germany certainly committed atrocities (everyone did), but it seems they could have done a lot worse, but held back. For whatever reasons. And, from everything I've heard, Hitler absolutely despised chemical weapons, having served in WW1. Some claim that's not true, and I certainly can't claim to know, but whether for tactical or moral reasons, it's a fact he didn't use them.
I'm not even picking sides here, but if the Axis had won, the Allies would have been villainized for numerous crimes they did commit, and numerous crimes they didn't, while the Axis's crimes would be swept under the rug. It's just how things work.