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

[rp08orbust]

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.

Far more lives could have been saved by sabotaging the US nuclear arsenal. FDR and Truman would have been forced to accept the Japanese terms of surrender that allowed their emperor to save face.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending WWII and everything to do with sending a message to the USSR, that message being, essentially, "We value human life no more than you do, so watch out!"

 

[pcosmar]

Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?

From the one who gave the order,, to the one(s) who created the weapon. All involved share blame.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

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.

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

 

[pcosmar]

This.

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing.

Wrong.
Not all Germans were Nazi. There were many who opposed what was done. And there was a resistance within Germany.

You are justifying killing them for the actions of the leaders. Most of the people are manipulated into this crap (in every country) and are NOT active combatants nor willing participants.

 

[PSYOP]

NO

 

[WM_in_MO]

No.

 

[AuH20]

The Japanese brought those bombs upon themselves. Just examine their tactics compared to the Nazis. They killed American POWS on sight and in some cases experimented on them. Secondly, much of the military brass refused to surrender which almost led to a successful coup after the bombings. Thirdly, much of the general population was imbued with this romantic notion that the old gods protected their island sanctuary, due to fortune smiling on them in the past. In contrast, Dresden was pure sport killing with no strategic value.

 

[tod evans]

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

I view this as the end result of propaganda..:o

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.

This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game

 

[JCDenton0451]

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.

Good point. There is no moral way to fight a war. Once you have gotten yourself into one, your only goal should be to end it quickly and at the lowest cost possible .

However, I can't imagine modern situation, where the use of WMD in civilian areas would be justified.

 

[otherone]

The question isn't 'who is it moral to slaughter', the question is 'who has the authority to do the slaughtering'. That we feel it moral to create and feed a Leviathan, and then imbue it with the legal authority to slaughter anyone, is terrifying.

 

[AuH20]

if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.

This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game

Good point. We need to dispose of our emperor and his feudal lords before it is too late.

 

[The Free Hornet]

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

Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):

However, Rand was rightly concerned that as a matter of practical epistemology, it is difficult to know with certainty whether an accused person has truly committed a capital crime. Since a death penalty, once enforced, can never be taken back, she thought in practice it should only be applied in rare cases.

http://www.atlassociety.org/capital-punishment

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-366102.html?

 

[Christian Liberty]

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?

Well, paying taxes isn't a choice, one might as well say that if you pay money to a burgler rather than let him kill your family, you are now guilty for his actions. Which is ridiculous.

As for the rest of those, there will inevitably be some people in the city that don't do that.

My answer is no. I'd much rather try to assassinate the aggressors directly, if necessary.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):

I agree with Ayn Rand. But since the abortion providers are acting "Legally" at present, we already know who they are. As far as I'm concerned, we can skip straight to the penalty phase, in that instance.

I would have voted "Not Guilty" at Scott Roeder's trial. And every pro-lifer should agree with me.

I support executing all of them...

 

[Snew]

No.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I think its hilarious how the neo-cons listed Jack Hunter's youthful opposition to the nuking of 100s of thousands of non-combatants as "racism" along with his not worshipping Lincoln--and even more hilarious how Jack Hunter took it all back:

[Hunter] said he no longer thinks the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks and does not believe that neoconservative foreign policy is driven purely by oil and Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/07/09/rand-pauls-newest-problem/

Maybe that's why Harry the former Klansman went soft and all of a sudden began worrying about "all those kids" and stopped after only two?

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/ralph-raico/the-war-criminal-harry-truman/

Maybe for the neo-cons the Klan is sort of like Al Qaeda?: sometimes they support them and sometimes they don't.

 

[pcosmar]

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

Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
Killing civilians (non-combatants) is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic.

Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. It is never justified nor justifiable.

 

[robert68]

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

Their logic easily justifies half the world targeting the civilian population of the US, for what the US government has done to them.

 

[robert68]

Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
Killing civilians (non-combatants) is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic.

Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. It is never justified nor justifiable.

I was jesting bro. Guess I should have done it better.