A'relevant' moral dillemma

[HopeandGlory]

Just one point - the Allies were fighting Japan, not just the US. This is not just me being prickly. There were many Australian Pisoners of War in Japan at the time of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those still alive today can give eyewitness accounts of the mushroom clouds. The effort against the Axis powers was by the Allies, not a single nation.

Many British POW's were there too.

 

[Diuretic]

Quite true.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You bombed the Japanese into submission before you'educated' them, it was hardly a massive assumption on my part to suggest you thought a similar 'education' was required for the muslim world.

\
Well, my new business doesnt allow me to post daily or even weekly, But I just now read this.

Very typical liberal arguement. The person says we cant change a culture. I bring up japan, WWll. They say, oh, so you want to use atomic bombs to convert the muslims. Hmmm, anybody follow that logic??????

Yea, it was a massive assumption, not only that, but a very basic MAJOR mistake in basic logic.

Now, regarding the necessity of whether or not we needed to use the atomic bomb, some say it was too drastic. Who should we really ask that question to? Uh, lets try asking the Japanese circa 1945. Well, apparently after dropping ONE BOMB already, they werent ready to surrender, so that lack of willingness to surrender tends to make me think they didnt think it was so damn drastic, HENCE WE HAD TO DROP A SECOND ONE !!!!!!!!!!!! DONT THIS FUCKING LIBERAL MORONS GET IT??????????? IF IT WAS SO DAMN HORRIFIC, WHY DID WE HAVE TO DROT TWO????????????????????????????????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

the original question are questionable:

--How do we know that torture is the only way to get this person to talk?

--How do we know we have the right person, and that the supposed plot is real?

Many military interrogators say that torture simply doesn't work. People say way you want to hear, and withold as much as they can. Techniques of isolating and befriending the person supposedly work better.

The second question is hardly academic, given the number of innocent people being discovered on death row each year. These people's convictions involved massive judicial processes, with numerous checks and balances designed to ensure that only guilty people end up convicted. If such elaborate processes are unreliable, how do we know that whoever tells us we have the right guy is right? In Afghanistan, we are known to have tortured two entirely innocent people to death (at Bagram, as reported by the New York Times last year). This destroys our credibility as saviors and proponents of human diginity.

In terms of torturing this specific guy, I think many people would say that graded torture would be appropriate if other techniques had failed (including checking his laptop for the location of the other bombs--basic police work is likely far more effective than torture, and free of moral scruples), and we had overwhelming evidence that he was the right guy and that the story of unexploded bombs was true.

Torturing his wife and family, though--to me, that's an entirely different dilemma. I would personally consider it morally repugnant to torture an innocent child, no matter what the potential gain. If torturing an innocent child were the only way to save our civilization, I'd have to wonder if our civilization were worth saving.

Mariner

(...who has been a silent lurker on USMB for a couple of months because liberals are no longer needed to critique Bush & company--they're doing a perfectly satisfactory job of impaling themselves on their own swords and shooting one another in the feet... )

Uh, hate to tell you this retard, errr liberal apologist, (one and the same), the first two facts you are trying to dispute ARE GIVENS. They are already accepted as FACTS for the conversation to begin.

 

[Hobbit]

YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DROP TWO.............................YOU JUST FUCKING DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SMACKS OF OVERKILL IF YOU ASK ME?
Having just EMPHASISED that to you, I must admit that it did get the job done.It also allowed you to walk into Japan and dictate the new order.
BECAUSE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS HORRIFIC TO DROP ATOM BOMBS ON DEFENSLESS PEOPLE HORRIFIES ME AND CAUSES ME TO QUESTION YOUR ETHICAL/MORAL MINDSET, NEVER MIND YOUR FUCKING SANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE INFUCKINGSANE FOR IT NOT TO BOTHER YOU...........just a little bit?

You're misinformed. The Japanese people were hardly defenseless. Every last one of them was arming himself to the teeth in preparation to fight the American invasion down to the last man. As seen in the mass suicide attacks at Okinawa, we saw that this enemy would rather die killing us than live with defeat (sound familiar?). It was estimated that America would lose at least 1 million men in the invasion. When we dropped the first bomb, we told them that if they didn't surrender, we'd drop another one. They didn't surrender. If we hadn't dropped the second one, they wouldn't have surrendered, seeing our lack of resolve as a sign of weakness, and the land invasion would have been the bloodiest campaign in the history of the world. My grandfather would most likely have died, and the American soldiers in Europe knew that the horrors they had seen were nothing compared to what the Japs would throw at us. The idea that dropping both bombs was anything short of necessary is to deny the very basic nature of the Japanese Empire, and is quite naive, at best.

There is such a thing as evil in this world. Our grandparents stared it in the face, saw the darkness and emptiness behind the eyes of our enemies, and they broke the will of those that carried that evil. They did nothing short of save the world from the most horrible darkness that had ever descended on the world. Those who think that the Japanese could possibly have been reasoned with without a definitive demonstration of not only our newfound power, but our will to use it as much as necessary, are fooling themselves.

 

[Phaedrus]

Not necessarily armed to the teeth, but they were teaching the children to use bamboo spears. I believe you are over estimating the effect of the A-bomb. The reason we were able to dictate anything is due to the simple fact that the Emperor surrendered.

If he hadn't, it could have gone on a lot longer. Did he surrender in part because of the A-bomb? Yes. Did the A-bomb end the war? No. Had Russia not invaded Mongolia, or the Emporer decided not surrender, The A-bombs would have done little if anything.

 

[Phaedrus]

Well it appears I'm a little late to join this discussion, but whatever. I truly don't understand how people can even attempt to justify ends based arguments. The solution is not as readily apparent as some have tried to make it appear. It depends on many factors.

Firstly, you provide him with the goddamn lawyer. Secondly, you evacuate everybody in the area as safely as possible. Thirdly you deploy as many bomb detection and defusal squads as possible in the most likely areas to be targeted. Fourthly, you assess the risks.

Now you assess the situation as a whole. Are you in charge? Are you in a position to make a difference? If you are going to torture this man, the administration can in no way be tied to your actions. You are solely responsible for what you do. You take a gun.

You shoot the lawyer (poor guy), and target extremities and “sensitive” areas until he talks. You do not shoot to kill. If necessary, you do involve any weaknesses he might have (relations). UNDERSTAND you only do this if YOU are willing. It is your choice.

You do this not because it is any way right or justified, but because you have made the subjective choice to do this. I WOULD NEVER do this, but in the hypothetical sense, it is a process. It would be inherently immoral and unjustifiable to pass this task off.

People need to face the results of their actions, and in no way expect to get off with a slap on the wrist. You might, however, be able to hold your head up high in the belief you were right. God save you if you weren’t. Personally, I would be among the bomb squads.

Edit: You contact the Lawyer 1st for plausible deniability, so as to distance the administration from you personal actions. It is implied you do this alone. I cannot stress enough that this is a personal decission. You have no "right" to kill anybody ever.

 

[Diuretic]

War is about overwhelming force. Using the A-bomb was about overwhelming force. It was used twice just in case the Japanese didn't get the point the first time. It worked.
It was brutal, yes. So was Bomber Harris' decision to firestorm Dresden.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not necessarily armed to the teeth, but they were teaching the children to use bamboo spears. I believe you are over estimating the effect of the A-bomb. The reason we were able to dictate anything is due to the simple fact that the Emperor surrendered.

If he hadn't, it could have gone on a lot longer. Did he surrender in part because of the A-bomb? Yes. Did the A-bomb end the war? No. Had Russia not invaded Mongolia, or the Emporer decided not surrender, The A-bombs would have done little if anything.

There is only one reality. And in that reality, the a bomb was a demonstration of power so complete it had the effect of ending the war.

 

[Hobbit]

What do tell was a valid defense against the Atomic bomb?

So, let me get this straight, we were supposed to attack them in some way they had adequate defenses for out of some sick sense of fair play? Those bombs, both of them, saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

 

[Mariner]

my asking about the assumptions themselves, I'd note that the title of the original post was "A 'Relevant' Moral Dilemma." To the extent that its assumptions are questionable, the moral dilemma is irrelevant to the real world, so why bother talking about it?

Mariner.

 

[HopeandGlory]

So, let me get this straight, we were supposed to attack them in some way they had adequate defenses for out of some sick sense of fair play? Those bombs, both of them, saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

And British and Australian, Canadian and New Zealander. The Allies were fighting in the Pacific Theatre - as previously said, it wasn't just the US against Japan.

 

[HopeandGlory]

War is about overwhelming force. Using the A-bomb was about overwhelming force. It was used twice just in case the Japanese didn't get the point the first time. It worked.
It was brutal, yes. So was Bomber Harris' decision to firestorm Dresden.

A tough decision but a right decision. All the bleeding heart stuff about Dresden since the end of the war is easy to do after the fact.

Dresden had become the main communications area for the defence of Germany on the Eastern Front and as such, was a valid target. The rail junction there had been virtually untouched since the start of the war and would have allowed the Wehrmacht to reinforce the Eastern Front with troops from Italy, Norway and other occupied countires, thus delaying the invasion of Germany from the East. The city was also significant from an industrial POV and was supplying the Nazi War Machine with munnitions, supplies and equipment.

Much is made of the fact that the city was exceptionally historic and beautiful prior to the bombings. Sorry - this one-way vision doesn't wash with me. Warsaw was historic, as was Rotterdam. As was Portsmouth, much of Bristol, all of London along the wharfs of the Thames!

As for Coventry - it may not have been all that beautiful - but it was also devastated. The Nazi's didn't give a stuff about beauty when it was them doing the bombing!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

my asking about the assumptions themselves, I'd note that the title of the original post was "A 'Relevant' Moral Dilemma." To the extent that its assumptions are questionable, the moral dilemma is irrelevant to the real world, so why bother talking about it?

Mariner.

But this is a "what if". It's called a scenario and it's what responsible leaders do to prepare themselves for any and all eventualities. If you refuse to model the scenario and contribute meaningfully due to your own intellectual constriction, you rob society of your contribution. In other words, The Dems have No Plan, and shut down attempts to discuss reality.

 

[Mariner]

the "what if," after raising the real-world relevance issues. There's a danger in living in an ideal scenario world too, as the NeoCons, the planners of "Shock & Awe," and the happy "Mission Accomplished" banner-raisers have all learned, to their dismay. Similarly for the ideal theories of trickle-down economics, which make such good sound bites, and stink so badly in the real world. (And, to be fair, liberals have their own history of chasing pies in the sky, from the vogue for communism in the early part of the last century, to the outsized expectations for what cash could accomplish in wars on poverty both here and abroad, e.g. Africa.)

Mariner.

 

[Diuretic]

A tough decision but a right decision. All the bleeding heart stuff about Dresden since the end of the war is easy to do after the fact.

Dresden had become the main communications area for the defence of Germany on the Eastern Front and as such, was a valid target. The rail junction there had been virtually untouched since the start of the war and would have allowed the Wehrmacht to reinforce the Eastern Front with troops from Italy, Norway and other occupied countires, thus delaying the invasion of Germany from the East. The city was also significant from an industrial POV and was supplying the Nazi War Machine with munnitions, supplies and equipment.

Much is made of the fact that the city was exceptionally historic and beautiful prior to the bombings. Sorry - this one-way vision doesn't wash with me. Warsaw was historic, as was Rotterdam. As was Portsmouth, much of Bristol, all of London along the wharfs of the Thames!

As for Coventry - it may not have been all that beautiful - but it was also devastated. The Nazi's didn't give a stuff about beauty when it was them doing the bombing!

That's my point. In war things get bombed. In Japan things got A-bombed. Twice. The Japanese got the point.

It's senseless looking back and decrying tactics at the time. Two A-bombs stopped the war. Immediately.

 

[Hobbit]

Then why not stop Iraq with a bomb?If we had done that the during desert storm we could argue that we had saved thousands of lives.Why not stop Iran, Pakistan and Korea with a nuclear bomb? Afghanistan, Libya and Zimbabwe need a reminder too.Let us just pick the most deserving of a nuclear strike and save many lives in the process?Why not?We can always justify it to ourselves.

Because, unlike Imperial Japan, the majority of the people in those countries will not fight to the death. Attempting to attack the Japanese A-bombs as inhumane acts is the most appalling act of the hate America crowd. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Diuretic]

Then why not stop Iraq with a bomb?If we had done that the during desert storm we could argue that we had saved thousands of lives.Why not stop Iran, Pakistan and Korea with a nuclear bomb? Afghanistan, Libya and Zimbabwe need a reminder too.Let us just pick the most deserving of a nuclear strike and save many lives in the process?Why not?We can always justify it to ourselves.

Desert Storm had limited objectives. Taking over Iraq wasn't one of them. No-one is (yet) at war with Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea. Afghanistan is occupied. Libya is back in the world. Zimbabwe - just one well-placed bullet would fix Zimbabwe's problems.

Anyway two A-bombs ended a 6 year long world war. Ended it. A-bombs weren't used in the Korean War, but they were available. They weren't used because it wasn't appropriate. They haven't been used since 1945 because there has not been an appropriate opportunity for use. It seems to me that the use back in 1945 was appropriate. Terrible, but appropriate. They ended a world war.

 

[ErikViking]

The use of nuclear weapons against civilians is in my opinion one of several low-points in our history regarding the respect of human life. Trying to justify the killings later also falls terribly short in my eyes. Fear - hate - dehumanization - death. Easy as that.

This will happen again and again.

Here is a little experiment you can perform to test what you think about innocent (deliberatly) getting killed:

If a Japaneese bombing of America would have served the purpose of ending the war - would it also been considered a good thing to do by now then?

If proving that further resistance would be futile had to be done by hand, lets say kill some 100.000 unarmed people with knives - just to prove you can do it, would it also have been a good thing?

(Getting practical over those questions is the same as thinking "no")

If you think "no" here, you probably think like I do. Humans are capable of the worst thinkable actions against other humans and our civilized manners is a quite thin layer over the beasts we are. I can live with it. Others die because of it.

Fear - hate - dehumanization - death. Easy as that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your argument is that these bombs ended the war, I ask why not end all wars at the beginning with similar strikes, you say inappropriate, what kind of answer is that?

Japan had effectively lost the war before the bombs were dropped, they weren't going anywhere, why would we have to invade?

To dismantle their war machine so they can't launch new attacks once they've strenthened up a while. Are you really this dense?