CDZ Hiroshima Debate: The End of the Age of Reason?

[there4eyeM]

I am not suggesting that the firebombing of Tokyo, for example, was an attempt to destroy industry or military installations. It was to destroy people. The German bombing of Guernica, for example was not to destroy industry or military installations, but people. The Japanese bombing of Nanking, for example, was not to destroy industry, but people.
That is the company terror bombers keep.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like the other bombings of civilian targets during WWII, they were obviously acts of terrorism. The only thing that was special about them is the long term genetic damage they did, which might or might not have been predictable based on the scientific evidence available at the time. I've never heard of children being born after the fire-bombing of Dresden suffering from thermite poisoning, for instance.

War is hell.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, the Allies accepted the standard set by its fascist and imperialist adversaries. Notable.

Industry was in the cities. The bombing was inaccurate and had to be conducted on a HUGE scale. Are you suggesting we should not have bombed the enemies industry?

Some people have apparently not moved past the early 19th century, when war was mostly fought on a battlefield by the armies in question.

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes, many wistfully regard the past and think, for example, that a man with his rifle can stand up to an army in the field.
Modern times have changed the standards for many things, morals especially. Accepting the barbaric moral standards of racists, authoritarians and the generally power-hungry is not modern, however. It is merely inhuman.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am not suggesting that the firebombing of Tokyo, for example, was an attempt to destroy industry or military installations. It was to destroy people. The German bombing of Guernica, for example was not to destroy industry or military installations, but people. The Japanese bombing of Nanking, for example, was not to destroy industry, but people.
That is the company terror bombers keep.

So you do not we should have bombed enemy industry? I mean both cities were hqs for major armies, major industry and both were function Ports. And that is why they were selected.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, many wistfully regard the past and think, for example, that a man with his rifle can stand up to an army in the field.
Modern times have changed the standards for many things, morals especially. Accepting the barbaric moral standards of racists, authoritarians and the generally power-hungry is not modern, however. It is merely inhuman.

Judging someone from a past time with different morals and accepted behavior with today's Morals and behavior is retarded. As for a man and his rifle need I remind you that Muslims have been fighting armies modern armies for years now with just men and rifles until they can get better equipment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, many wistfully regard the past and think, for example, that a man with his rifle can stand up to an army in the field.
Modern times have changed the standards for many things...

...such as the manner in which war must be fought, in reducing the enemy's ability to make war upon you.
In modern times. this means attacking industry and the infrastructure that supports it; as industries are located in cities, it means cities must be attacked and civilians must die.

You can try to argue your version of morality against reality all you want, but reality will win every time.

 

[Unkotare]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

MOD EDIT - this is the CDZ - please behave accordingly.
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

 

[alpine]

Yes; USA had every right to drop a nuke and obliterate those Japanese barbarians

And yes; USA should care about the innocent lives lost during this horrific event

And yet, we have people expressing both these points of view.

Gotta love AMERICA...

 

[Unkotare]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan s Quest for Power and World War II in Asia Asia for Educators Columbia University

 

[M14 Shooter]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?
MOD EDIT - this is the CDZ - please behave accordingly.

 

[there4eyeM]

The standard, not the morality.

 

[Unkotare]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

MOD EDIT - this is the CDZ - please behave accordingly.

 

[Unkotare]

Morality doesn't change over time, or it's not really morality.

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

That doesn't in any way change the fact you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I have every idea what I'm talking about, thanks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

(snicker)
So the morality we have today, different in many respects than morality from 500 years ago, isn't really morality?

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

That doesn't in any way change the fact you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I have every idea what I'm talking about, thanks.

Unlikely.
Disagree?
Illustrate the lack of change in morality from 1515 to 2015 - that is, show how it is the same.

 

[Unkotare]

Not different from 500 years ago. That's the point.

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

That doesn't in any way change the fact you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I have every idea what I'm talking about, thanks.

Unlikely.....

Certain. You are failing to understand "morality" in the universal, normative sense of the word. Like many people today, you want to view it as merely descriptive, but to do so renders the term meaningless. "Code of conduct" might be closer to what you want to use.

I hope that clears it up. Now, back to the OP: It should be noted, for whatever it's worth, that the decision to hold out under blockade and siege would be made by the enemy, whereas the decision to use atomic bombs on civilians was made by the US. An important moral distinction, whatever one's position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You think today's morality is the same as 500 years ago?

I know what the word "morality" really means.

That doesn't in any way change the fact you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I have every idea what I'm talking about, thanks.

Unlikely.....

Certain. You are failing to understand "morality" in the universal, normative sense of the word.

Illustrate the lack of change in morality from 1515 to 2015 - that is, show how it is the same.