70 years ago, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan which helped end WW2. Since then, we have been subjected to endless debate about the wisdom and morality of using those weapons. Since there is no rational argument against the specific use of those weapons,* it is evident that the basis for this debate is entirely emotional. One may rationally argue the morality and effectiveness of bombing cities during WW2, but ascribing some special depravity to the use of an atomic bomb for this purpose is entirely devoid of logical reasoning.
What is most concerning is the fact that almost all debate on national issues is now based on emotional, rather than rational, arguments. Is this a sign of the times that we have left behind the age of reason?
*These bombs were, by definition, no more powerful than an equivalent amount of TNT. In fact, given much greater geographical dispersal, one thousand 10 ton TNT bomb loads would have a far greater destructive effect (such as in Tokyo) than a single 10 kiloton atomic bomb. Besides, how many more Japanese cities would have to be (conventionally) bombed to force a surrender? Based on our experience with Okinawa, millions more might have died if we had not used these atomic weapons.
What is most concerning is the fact that almost all debate on national issues is now based on emotional, rather than rational, arguments. Is this a sign of the times that we have left behind the age of reason?
*These bombs were, by definition, no more powerful than an equivalent amount of TNT. In fact, given much greater geographical dispersal, one thousand 10 ton TNT bomb loads would have a far greater destructive effect (such as in Tokyo) than a single 10 kiloton atomic bomb. Besides, how many more Japanese cities would have to be (conventionally) bombed to force a surrender? Based on our experience with Okinawa, millions more might have died if we had not used these atomic weapons.