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

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

It's actually hard to answer, and I'll tell you why.

It is blatantly obviously 99.99999999999% of the time no; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly no, but if I sat around for an hour and tortured the hell out of some reason, I could probably come up with a scenario where such a thing would be justified. It would read like the plot of a Hollywood flick, and the likelihood of such a situation ever existing for any reason would be all but zero, but even 0.00000000001% of the time is technically not zero.

OK, wild speculation...Comic book villain, finger on a button that detonates the whole planet, underground impervious to traditional munitions, in the middle of a city, half the city population will defend the bunker to the death so special ops troops are a no-go, says he'll push the button unless we make him emperor of the planet. We have 72 hours to decide. Find the guy who built it and learn that it's real, and specs are such that only a fireball in excess of 250,000° Celsius will destroy the switch without potentially triggering it...

Of course, the situation is so ridiculous as to be absurd. It's just not going to happen, so the answer is 'no,' but it's not completely impossible for such a scenario, so the answer wouldn't be "never under any circumstance." The circumstance is just so incredibly unlikely that it wouldn't even fly in a James Bond movie.

I'm probably more dove-ish on this than the vast majority of the 'no' votes in the poll, I'm just really good at coming up with the devil's advocate scenario.

I voted yes for the reason that there are some conceivable circumstances where it would be justified, although it's incredibly unlike that such scenarios would ever occur.

It just so happens that in the extreme scenario you described it still would not be justified to drop the WMD on the city. Murder isn't justified even if murdering someone is necessary to save the world. Of course, I would say that the moral thing to do is to commit the act of murder to save the world, but that still doesn't mean that it would be justified. See my recent blog post "Morally Permissible Unjust Acts" for more on this point.

For a description of a scenario in which it would be justified see my post #115 in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...is-justified&p=5161007&viewfull=1#post5161007

 

[JCDenton0451]

The war was already over. Japan had NO navy and NO air force left.
Japan was defeated. THEY knew it and the U.S. knew it. Japan wanted to surrender. The U.S. knew THAT, too.
Japan's chiefly desired condition was the preservation of the Emperor and his family - something which the U.S. ended up granting anyway.
But nothing other than the abject & unconditional surrender would serve - so 150,000 to 250,000 human lives were ended for the sake of imposing a pointless humiliation.

Ships and planes are just hardware. They can be replaced/rebuilt. The war isn't over until the enemy is completely destroyed or made peace. Japan and the allies couldn't agree on the terms of surrender, so the war continued. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the negotiations, but it must have been a big deal for the Japanese, since it took them 3 weeks after they had been nuked to actually surrender.

 

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."

That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable.
But are there times when pink unicorns shoot rainbows out of their asses?

See the difference?

The question was "are there times" not "have there been times in history." If the question was the latter I would have answered no, but since it was in the present tense I believe it is reasonable to consider all possible hypothetical scenarios that could conceivably happen. Thus I answered "yes."

 

[robert68]

A mass plurality of Japanese citizens lived to serve their living god, the emperor. 'They' is a suitable pronoun. This wasn't exactly a populace taken hostage like in Nazi Germany.

That's not a response to anything I wrote. It's a common practice of yours.

 

[AuH20]

That's not a response to anything I wrote. It's a common practice of yours.

You stated I was wrong to refer to them as a collective. I disagree. Their very problems were tied to this hive mentality.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I voted yes for the reason that there are some conceivable circumstances where it would be justified, although it's incredibly unlike that such scenarios would ever occur.

It just so happens that in the extreme scenario you described it still would not be justified to drop the WMD on the city. Murder isn't justified even if murdering someone is necessary to save the world. Of course, I would say that the moral thing to do is to commit the act of murder to save the world, but that still doesn't mean that it would be justified. See my recent blog post "Morally Permissible Unjust Acts" for more on this point.

For a description of a scenario in which it would be justified see my post #115 in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...is-justified&p=5161007&viewfull=1#post5161007

Then our definition of 'just' is as different as our definition of 'moral.'

jus·ti·fy (jst-f)
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
v.tr.
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve.

Validity, necessity, absolution, and blamelessness are all routes to justification. It is not dependent on some legal minutia.

 

[robert68]

You stated I was wrong to refer to them as a collective. I disagree.

I said more than that. But have no interest in any further response on it, so forget about the matter. I know what I'm dealing with.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, it's not going to raise their chances of winning.

Let me remind you that AQ is not a country. But an organization of individuals who are pissed off at the Judeo American axis of evil because they have murdered , maimed, persecuted their families.

Those Americans who are injured by any AQ attack will not be consoled because , the event "it's not going to raise their chances of winning".

.

.

 

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Then our definition of 'just' is as different as our definition of 'moral.'

I define "just" as that which should be legal and "unjust" as that which should be illegal. On the other hand, just because something is "morally permissible" or "the right thing to do" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be legal to do that thing, although in a large majority of cases morally permissible things should be legal.

Validity, necessity, absolution, and blamelessness are all routes to justification. It is not dependent on some legal minutia.

I don't disagree. Maybe this hypothetical scenario will help you see where I am coming from: Imagine an asteroid is flying at the earth and it's going to kill Person A. Further imagine that the only way to prevent the asteroid from killing Person A is if you kill me, an innocent person, against my will (i.e. if you murder me). Is it justified for you to murder me? In other words, should it be legal for you to kill me against my will to save this innocent Person A from the asteroid?

Presumably your answer is no, but what if there are two people, A and B, who the asteroid is going to kill. If the only way to stop the asteroid from killing them is for you to murder me, is it justified? Probably your answer is still no. But what if the asteroid is going to kill five people, or ten, or 100, or a million people?

Where do you draw the line? Personally, I do not draw the line on the issue of what the law should be. I believe that it should be illegal for you to kill an innocent person against their will, even if doing so will prevent the asteroid from killing a million people.

However, I do draw the arbitrary line on the moral question. There is some point (some number of people) at which I now say that it is morally permissible to commit the act of murder to save the number of people. And at some larger number of people, I draw another arbitrary line and now say that "the right thing to do" is to commit the murder. I would probably say that it would be immoral for you to murder someone if doing so only saved a few people from the asteroid. On the other hand, if there was a whole city of a million people that was going to be killed by the asteroid unless you murdered someone against their will, then I would say that the moral "right thing to do" would be to commit the act of murder.

Must I also believe that this act of murder should be legal? Why? I believe that the law should protect peoples' rights in all circumstances. The individual can decide when he or she believes it to be morally appropriate to violate peoples' rights in the name of some greater good, but this person should still have to face the legal consequences associated with violating someone's rights, if their victim wishes to prosecute them and receive restitution, etc.

For more of my thoughts on this, I again point to my recent blog post: Morally Permissible Unjust Acts.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ships and planes are just hardware. They can be replaced/rebuilt.

Not if you have no manufacturing capacity and no way to import replacements. (The. War. Was. OVER.)

The war isn't over until the enemy is completely destroyed or made peace.

Japan was no longer any threat and had NO way of reinstantiating itself as a threat. (The. War. Was. OVER.)

Japan and the allies couldn't agree on the terms of surrender, so the war continued.

How many battles were fought? Where, when and how did they take place? (The. War. Was. OVER.)

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the negotiations, but it must have been a big deal for the Japanese, since it took them 3 weeks after they had been nuked to actually surrender.

Of course it was a big deal for the Japanese! How could it possibly not have been?
The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The question was "are there times" not "have there been times in history." If the question was the latter I would have answered no, but since it was in the present tense I believe it is reasonable to consider all possible hypothetical scenarios that could conceivably happen. Thus I answered "yes."

This is more sophistry.

 

[Cabal]

This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."

That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable. So what?

This. Philosophizing about ethics from a standard of entirely fabricated no-win lifeboat scenarios that may only have a chance of occurring one time in a million years (if ever at all) in the real world only serves to feed into a false illusion that morality is ultimately relative. It's total bullshit.

"Murder of innocent life is wrong, unless I am dropping a WMD on a civilian population under these specific extreme circumstances which I can't even describe because they are so extraordinarily ridiculous and unlikely, that it's difficult to even fathom them ever coming to realization."

And then what happens is the "conceivable" circumstances are taken to such absurd extremes that the element of choice is completely nullified anyway, rendering a discussion of ethics moot, and you're screwed regardless.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Not if you have no manufacturing capacity and no way to import replacements. (The. War. Was. OVER.)

Japan was no longer any threat and had NO way of reinstantiating itself as a threat. (The. War. Was. OVER.)

These two statements are plain false. How can you say such a thing? You're making up nonsensical crap to support your absolutist position.

The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.

LOL That's taking it to the ridiculous level.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This. Philosophizing about ethics from a standard of entirely fabricated no-win lifeboat scenarios that may only have a chance of occurring one time in a million years (if ever at all) in the real world only serves to feed into a false illusion that morality is ultimately relative. It's total bullshit.

"Murder of innocent life is wrong, unless I am dropping a WMD on a civilian population under these specific extreme circumstances which I can't even describe because they are so extraordinarily ridiculous and unlikely, that it's difficult to even fathom them ever coming to realization."

And then what happens is the "conceivable" circumstances are taken to such absurd extremes that the element of choice is completely nullified anyway, rendering a discussion of ethics moot, and you're screwed regardless.

I must spread some rep ...

People do not live in lifeboats and "lifeboat scenarios" are almost without exception engineered to create an artificial conflict between our sympathies & empathies (on the one hand) and our intellect & reason (on the other hand) - usually with the (unstated) purpose of discombobulating & neutralizing the latter. When discussing ethics & morality, we are best served by staying out of lifeboats and keeping our feet firmly planted on solid earth.

 

[Occam's Banana]

These two statements are plain false. How can you say such a thing? You're making up nonsensical crap to support your absolutist position.

LOL That's taking it to the ridiculous level.

Your complete and utter lack of any substantive rebuttal or counter-argument speaks for itself.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Your complete and utter lack of any substantive rebuttal or counter-argument speaks for itself.

I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, buddy. Go read wikipedia or something...Saying that Japan had no manufacturing capacity left is plain retarded.

 

[Cabal]

Enter Voltaire

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

 

[AuH20]

The U.S. obstinately ignored Japan's offers of conditional surrender & obstructively demanded unconditional surrender.

And the Japanese had what leverage? After the fierce fighting that had transpired at Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, they weren't going to get a fair deal. War is not a moral endeavor. Their own destruction was seeded when they attacked Pearl Harbor and gave fascist FDR exactly what he wanted. An entrance into the war. Prince Konoye begged his military leadership to not engage the Americans when the oil was cut off.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't have time to give you a lesson in history, buddy.

That's pretty funny. Considering your claims (from another thread) that the economy of the Soviet Union "seemed to work" and that criticism of central planning is "mostly theory with little empirical data to support it," any "lessons" you might have to offer would pretty much be utterly worthless. In fact, anyone who took such lessons from you would be apt to end up even more ignorant than when they started.

Saying that Japan had no manufacturing capacity left is plain retarded.

Once it lost its navy and air force and was invested by the U.S. military, Japan had NO CAPACITY to import things it HAD TO HAVE in order maintain manufactury - things such as steel, rubber and oil. Especially oil. (Why the hell do you think they started rampaging around the Pacific the first place?) It sure as hell did not have any capacity left to build warships or warplanes.

What is retarded is the idiotic notion that Japan could have had any chance in hell of rebuilding its utterly destroyed and non-existent navy or air force while the nuclear-armed Pacific might of the U.S. military looked on. In order to have the capacity to make something, you have to be able to make it.

Go read wikipedia or something

So you are a hypocrite as well as ignorant. Why am I not surprised?
(The following post by JCD is from another thread in which he enlightens us as to the dubious value of reading sources.)

I don't appreciate people spewing book wisdom at me. I find it very condescending and it bores me. You want to make a point, do it in your own words. This is what the forum is supposed to be about.

 

[DamianTV]

In order to answer this question, we need to understand one thing: why the Govts of the world go to War.

Usually it is for no other purpose than to enslave the Govts of any country to Central Banks. It has absolutely nothing to do with Politics. Central Banks are the ONLY reason countries make countries go to War, however Military War is not the only method of destruction by Central Banks. Central Banks will try to enslave the Govts of other nations by Financial Warfare. If that does not work, Military War follows.

Thus, justifying WMDs during Military War is nothing more than a means to enslave the Govts of other countries to a Central Bank, and as a result is never truly justified.