Was Hiroshima Wrong?

[elvis]

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

Yeah, he did. He said saving some people to save the lives of a far larger number is acceptable.

So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?

except they knew it wouldn't.

 

[Kalam]

well, yeah, he did.

'Do the ends justify the means?'

'The goal was to...'

Sorry; that isn't a direct answer to the question I asked.

yes. the ends justified the means, as lives were saved..

My question was general, not specific to the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, implying that 'lives were saved' is silly since it's based on the supposition that certain things would have happened in certain ways. Too many assumptions and hypothetical situations are involved in excusing the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[Kalam]

Yeah, he did. He said saving some people to save the lives of a far larger number is acceptable.

So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?

except they knew it wouldn't.

Doesn't matter even if we assumed that this was true. If hypothetical situations can be used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then they can be used here as well.

 

[elvis]

So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?

except they knew it wouldn't.

Doesn't matter even if we assumed that this was true. If hypothetical situations can be used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then they can be used here as well.

bin laden hit the towers because he knew we'd respond with war. nothing hypothetical about it.

 

[Polk]

So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?

except they knew it wouldn't.

Doesn't matter even if we assumed that this was true. If hypothetical situations can be used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then they can be used here as well.

Not even remotely apt comparison.

 

[Kalam]

bin laden hit the towers because he knew we'd respond with war.

Please produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.

 

[Kalam]

except they knew it wouldn't.

Doesn't matter even if we assumed that this was true. If hypothetical situations can be used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then they can be used here as well.

Not even remotely apt comparison.

So explain why it isn't apt.

 

[Kalam]

I'm highly skeptical of claims that the bombs were dropped in order to save Japanese lives. Can anyone support this with some sort of relevant US war document?

 

[elvis]

bin laden hit the towers because he knew we'd respond with war.

Please produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.

why? do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?

 

[elvis]

I'm highly skeptical of claims that the bombs were dropped in order to save Japanese lives. Can anyone support this with some sort of relevant US war document?

they were dropped to save american lives first and foremost. they incidentally saved japanese lives.

 

[Kalam]

bin laden hit the towers because he knew we'd respond with war.

Please produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.

why?

Because I have no interest in baseless assumptions about the motives of actors. If you can give support for it then I'll have to take it into consideration.

do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?

What I think about him doesn't matter.

 

[Kalam]

I'm highly skeptical of claims that the bombs were dropped in order to save Japanese lives. Can anyone support this with some sort of relevant US war document?

they were dropped to save american lives first and foremost. they incidentally saved japanese lives.

I see no reason to believe that they saved Japanese lives.

 

[elvis]

Please produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.

why?

Because I have no interest in baseless assumptions about the motives of actors. If you can give support for it then I'll have to take it into consideration.

do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?

What I think about him doesn't matter.

then why does it matter what you think about Truman? why guess about Truman's motives?

 

[elvis]

I'm highly skeptical of claims that the bombs were dropped in order to save Japanese lives. Can anyone support this with some sort of relevant US war document?

they were dropped to save american lives first and foremost. they incidentally saved japanese lives.

I see no reason to believe that they saved Japanese lives.

then you don't understand what the alternative was. and i'm not even including the fact that the red army was going to invade japan.

 

[Kalam]

why?

Because I have no interest in baseless assumptions about the motives of actors. If you can give support for it then I'll have to take it into consideration.

do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?

What I think about him doesn't matter.

then why does it matter what you think about Truman? why guess about Truman's motives?

I'm not. We know that the targets were chosen to maximize the psychological effects of the terrorism based on the Target Committee's own statements:

It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945

 

[westwall]

So the ends justify the means?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

Your question is not truly a question, it is an assumption, and I disagree with your assumption.

 

[Kalam]

then you don't understand what the alternative was.

I reject this as another false dichotomy. I see no reason to believe that 'drop atomic bombs on major population centers' or 'launch a full-scale ground invasion' represented the full extent of the US military's options.

 

[Kalam]

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

Your question is not truly a question, it is an assumption, and I disagree with your assumption.

What did I assume?

 

[elvis]

then you don't understand what the alternative was.

I reject this as another false dichotomy. I see no reason to believe that 'drop atomic bombs on major population centers' or 'launch a full-scale ground invasion' represented the full extent of the US military's options.

reject all you want. you are incorrect. unless you count leaving tojo and the militaristic government in power as another option.

 

[westwall]

I'm highly skeptical of claims that the bombs were dropped in order to save Japanese lives. Can anyone support this with some sort of relevant US war document?

they were dropped to save american lives first and foremost. they incidentally saved japanese lives.

I see no reason to believe that they saved Japanese lives.

That is immaterial. Almost every unbiased report has presented empirical data that the bombs saved lives. The Japanese anti invasion plans are well documented, the spears are in museums, that is a fact. You may "believe" whatever you wish but the the rest of the world doesn't care what you believe.