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

[there4eyeM]

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.

Bingo!
Precisely!
If THEY decided to starve to death, that is not the same as others deciding to obliterate them just for the satisfaction. There is no way to exonerate the bombing by trying to twist it into being 'humanitarian'.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

I directly and specifically addressed your apparent misunderstanding of the term. You're not going to post four SPAM-posts in a row again, are you? Let's try to stick to the thread topic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

 

[Unkotare]

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.

I directly and specifically addressed your apparent misunderstanding of the term. You're not going to post four SPAM-posts in a row again, are you? Let's try to stick to the thread topic.

Translation: ....

No translation needed. I explained it very clearly. Now, about the OP...

 

[Coyote]

Folks please remember you are debating in the CDZ - no put downs, flaming, insulting other posters.

 

[Unkotare]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

Arguments still often fall back on an invasion as if it were inevitable.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It was not necessary to invade an island incapable of feeding itself or its industry and stripped of military capacity. Why would any prudent general do that? The result of a siege was never more certain. Japan's eventual surrender was assured.
Of course, that would have meant many more deaths from starvation than the bombs inflicted.

 

[Disir]

If you can find the time to watch this documentary, do it. Somewhere in here, McNamara talks about a conversation that he had with General LeMay. LeMay tells him that if they didn't win the war then they would be tried as war criminals.