My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.
In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.
Just occurred to me that maybe another part of the reason for a civilian-heavy target was that air defenses would be much lighter. Given how there was only one bomb per run, you'd really want to minimize any risk to the bomber during such an operation.
You have to consider historical context, and what actually happened.
Firstly, bombing cities was an accepted practice. People spoke against it, even people in power, but it continued. Some of this is public vs private opinions, some is inertia, some is that it was a valid military tactic due to accuracy (or lack thereof) of airborne and ground based weaponry.
Secondly, people in houses were helping manufacture war material. This is a much weaker argument (to me), but still relevant to their views and opinions.
Thirdly, Japan was going to fight until the bitter end. The thought was to shock them into giving up.
So morally worse is relative. If the bombs dropped elsewhere wouldn't have worked, we'd have had nuked people... And then still killed a million more Americans plus whoever many Japanese, etc. Ultimately, it's not a black and white point.
There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?
I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.
You can read the hundreds of books written on it, I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here for you on it. This has all been covered and you don't have to agree, but coming at it from where you are is very short sighted imo.
My understanding of Tucker's argument isn't that dropping the bombs was the primary evil, but dropping it on civilians. I understanding manufacturering and whatnot takes place in cities, but it is quite the stretch to justify dropping a nuke in the middle of large civilian populations. Sure, legitimate military targets were hit, but the collateral damage was far too high.
In short, the choice of targets was morally worse than many other options.
Just occurred to me that maybe another part of the reason for a civilian-heavy target was that air defenses would be much lighter. Given how there was only one bomb per run, you'd really want to minimize any risk to the bomber during such an operation.
You have to consider historical context, and what actually happened.
Firstly, bombing cities was an accepted practice. People spoke against it, even people in power, but it continued. Some of this is public vs private opinions, some is inertia, some is that it was a valid military tactic due to accuracy (or lack thereof) of airborne and ground based weaponry.
Secondly, people in houses were helping manufacture war material. This is a much weaker argument (to me), but still relevant to their views and opinions.
Thirdly, Japan was going to fight until the bitter end. The thought was to shock them into giving up.
So morally worse is relative. If the bombs dropped elsewhere wouldn't have worked, we'd have had nuked people... And then still killed a million more Americans plus whoever many Japanese, etc. Ultimately, it's not a black and white point.
There are loaded assumptions about hypotheticals in there. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo?
I use to parrot the same talking points about the nuke -- it's what "the experts" have said since the bombs were dropped -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
As for everyone was bombing cities, "everyone is doing it" isn't a good moral arguement. As Jesus said, the wide road most people travel actually leads to hell.
You can read the hundreds of books written on it, I'm not writing a doctoral thesis here for you on it. This has all been covered and you don't have to agree, but coming at it from where you are is very short sighted imo.
Ah the classic "educate yourself, bigot" deflection. This subject really is one where conservatives become leftists!