Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

[eduardo89]

That's why I said adults, because, to me, killing adults from an enemy government is clear cut. Killing children is a tough moral question.

Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.

 

[krugminator]

Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.

I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.

Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?
AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

 

[Ender]

It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes. If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate.

In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.

'Scuse me?

The Japanese were trying to surrender- they were ignored.

Their "act of aggression" on the US was pushed into place by FDR, who took all their oil sources from them and then waited for them to attack. Pearl Harbor was put into place by FDR; he had information that it was coming and he let it happen so that people would rally to jump into WWII, which was not popular among Americans.

As far as a major move to overthrow the government, let us all hope that some conqueror doesn't have that same feelings toward Americans in the future that you have for the Japanese. I think we'd look a whole lot guiltier.

 

[eduardo89]

I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.

As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?

 

[oyarde]

Who is innocent ? , Who is not ? Who gets to decide ? This will not matter in terms of military victory , I imagine .....

 

[krugminator]

As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?

I thought about that and I said it was likely to be abused. Its a tough question when you aren't attacking aggressive governments, but instead going after individuals. Its a very gray area. I wish Ayn Rand were around to tell me what to think.

 

[fr33]

The only people that would say yes are those making a living off the missile factory. Many of them may not agree though.

 

[ObiRandKenobi]

just because a small segment of humanity during .00000000000000000000001% of our existence says it's wrong doesn't mean the other 99.999999999999999999% that engaged in or supported or cheered or didn't have a problem with mass murder were wrong.

all relative.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?

Very good question, BDTF. Apparently, the majority of respondents in this thread would just stand back and watch the super-villain destroy humanity.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans. Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately. If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Killing children is a tough moral question.

No it isn't.

 

[UWDude]

Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?

This.

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing. If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators. It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens". Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.

But "innocent" and "civilian" are often used together as if they mean the same thing. They don't. You can have guilty, collaborative, aggressive, arrogant civilian populations, and you can have innocent civilian populations.

There is no need for your people to die because you don't want to kill the people supporting the people attacking your people.

 

[AlexAmore]

I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?

Say you're being shot at by someone who is directly behind a human body shield, you're implying that because of HIS actions, I lose my right to self-defense? I can't shoot back?

I think I can shoot back, and if the innocent person dies, it's on him.

This is different than the Atomic bombs on Japan. The atomic bombs were not direct self defense, they were about posturing.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Seems to me the only time appropriate would be if there was a military campaign attacking US soil in an effort to dismantle our defense and occupy our country. We would have to counter by aggressively dismantling their power structure in their country to avoid defeat. As a result there would inevitably be civilian deaths.

With that being said, should we have ever aligned ourselves Europe against Germany? Should we have ever gotten involved in Asia against the Japanese?

If you want to know who is to blame in these wars, don't fail to leave out the banksters who fund these tyrannical regimes. Germany may have never been capable of what they did, had it not been for the business interests that funded their rise to military supremacy.

 

[UWDude]

What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?

What act of aggression did the people of China commit? What acts of aggression did the United States commit? What act of aggression did all the men in the United States armed forces who died because of Japanese aggression, make? Why did they have to die? Because of the Japanese and their imperialist aims.

I mean, one of the most moral things to do when a nation aggressively invades another, is to stop sending them the material to make weapons. Even if Roosevelt set up the fleet at pearl harbor, I still feel he was justified. Japan and Germany needed to be stopped, because the MOST moral thing one can do when they see one nation invade another out of pure aggression and empire, is to join the invaded side in the fight.

 

[UWDude]

'Scuse me?

The Japanese were trying to surrender- they were ignored.

Their "act of aggression" on the US was pushed into place by FDR, who took all their oil sources from them and then waited for them to attack. Pearl Harbor was put into place by FDR; he had information that it was coming and he let it happen so that people would rally to jump into WWII, which was not popular among Americans.

As far as a major move to overthrow the government, let us all hope that some conqueror doesn't have that same feelings toward Americans in the future that you have for the Japanese. I think we'd look a whole lot guiltier.

1. No, the Japanese were not trying to surrender, their idea of surrender was kind of a "lets stop and keep what we have" not, "OK, we shouldn't have tried to conquer the world with Hitler, we understand our aggression caused the deaths of tens of millions of people all over the world in a few years, women, children, and soldiers. We do not deserve any of the empire we have taken with wholesale murder."

2. As I said above, Roosevelt was RIGHT to stop shipping scrap iron and oil to the Japanese. The Japanese were slaughtering people wholesale in China. Embargoes and wars are not always wrong, they are usually just implemented unjustly.

3. Why hope? Why care? History WILL run its course. The United States WILL NEVER be safe unless it changes its ways. That will not happen, so eventually, WW III will. That means American cities will be wiped off the face of the Earth, as will other cities worldwide.

 

[amy31416]

I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.

Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?
AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

Ayn Rand is an immoral bag of dripping feces. Think for yourself.

 

[tod evans]

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing. If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators. It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens". Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.

Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...

If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.

Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.

 

[robert68]

There’s no greater evil than the state of a tiny country bombing US ships and planes for a few hours, even when the bombing is over 2,000 miles from the US; of course the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Civilian is too broad a group or too vague a term. Even dropping WMDs on "non-civilian" (e.g., military) targets are not necessarily justifiable, either. On the other hand, there might be circumstances when it is acceptable to subject civilians to such force; for example, a spy may be considered a civilian, yet they may be a part of a system of aggression.

Basically, there are at least a few general questions that are probably being asked, here:

Is collective punishment ever justifiable?
Do the ends justify the means?
Does an individual deserve presumption of innocence?

It is aggressors and the people who are knowingly, intentionally, and freely assisting the aggressors, and only these individuals, who ought to be subjectable to such force (regardless of whether they're military or civilian).