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

[Feeding the Abscess]

A country has a right not to trade with another country, however they don't have a right to forbid a third country from trading.

The US didn't like the way the Japanese military was behaving and cut off steel and oil. That was their right and was not a provocation for attack.

A country doesn't legitimately own anything, therefore it can't legitimately restrict trade between individuals of any countries.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No, the fact that WW2 in Europe occured proves you wrong.

It does no such thing. You are doing nothing but playing question-begging word games - by trying to define the conclusion you wish to avoid out of existence.

 

[DamianTV]

Broken Window Fallacy. Causing death of innocents does not save lives.

The only REAL winners of the wars in the 20th century have been the Central Banks.

 

[Danan]

The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?

And even if the only possible option to save some innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.

 

[eduardo89]

And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?

And even if the only possible option to save some innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.

It's the same argument politicians use when it comes to "cutting" spending.

"Oh, if we only go $7 trillion debt instead of $10 trillion over the next 10 years we've "saved" $3 trillion by "cutting" spending"

 

[AuH20]

And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?

And even if the only possible option to save some innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.

When the island hopping strategy commenced, there was no option of retreating.
Look at these numbers:

U.S. Casualties

Saipan (Jun-Jul 1944): 16,612 (Zeiler)
Leyte (Oct 1944): 15,584 (Zeiler)
Iwo Jima (Feb-Mar 1945): 26,821 (Zeiler)
Okinawa (Apr-Jun 1945): 49,151 (Zeiler)

They weren't taking casualties like that to let Japan slip away.

 

[erowe1]

Can I change my mind? I think it might be okay if a building was only occupied by Politicians and Banksters, where the destruction of the building would do tremendous good by protecting the People from the actions and consequences of those actions from those individuals in the building.

Yeah, I admit the inclusion of the word "innocent" in the poll question would have eliminated a shred of ambiguity that might be there.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No one can judge without being in Truman's shoes [...]

What a load of self-serving, mealy-mouthed bullshit!

Tell me this: if "no one can judge" then where do you and others get off "judging" what Truman did as being right (or at least acceptable)?

"No one can judge" is nothing more than code for "no one can judge - unless you agree with us, in which case you can judge all you like."

The bombs most likely saved lives. 1 million projected Japanese casualties via an invasion as opposed to the 300k eventually killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.

If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese. The one and only reason any American lives might have been at stake was the U.S. government's viciously irrational and self-serving refusal to accept anything but unconditional surrender.

 

[osan]

Reading this thread reminds me with some jarring violence why humanity is likely doomed.

Jesus it makes my head hurt.

 

[AuH20]

The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.

If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese.

All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.

 

[Danan]

The bombs did not save one single life. PERIOD. Japan sought to surrender. NO INVASION WAS NEEDED.

If the U.S. government/military gave a damn about "saving American lives" then they could have and should have come to terms with the willing-to-surrender Japanese.

All these psychopath "leaders" are interested in is their place in the history books. They don't care for lifes one bit.

 

[Danan]

All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.

Yeah, those civilians should have really accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Serfed them right!

 

[AuH20]

Yeah, those civilians should have really accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Serfed them right!

Cult of personality. Don't laugh. We could end up in the same boat.

 

[Danan]

Cult of personality. Don't laugh. We could end up in the same boat.

Every single civilian being bombed supported the emperor?

 

[AuH20]

Every single civilian being bombed supported the emperor?

Enough to the point that the Japanese killed 30 million fellow Asians during their conquest of Southeast Asia and parts of China.

 

[69360]

And invading or bombing them were the only two options? What about retreating?

And even if the only possible option to save some innocent lifes is to kill other innocents, that still would be wrong. There is no way that trading innocent people's lifes can be morally justified.

Why in the world would the US retreat? To leave the government that waged a war of aggression in power so they could rebuild and do it again? They needed to be totally defeated to the point where the population was convinced they would never be able to wage war in this manner again.

 

[Occam's Banana]

All Japan had to do was agree to the simple concessions laid out in the Potsdam Declaration.

And all the U.S. had to do was acknowledge and pursue Japan's overtures for a face-saving surrender. If the U.S. was as concerned about "saving American lives" as you claim, why didn't they do so (instead of planning for a murderously foolish and unnecessary invasion)?

They didn't even have the courage to directly contact the Americans but used the Russians as their intermediaries.

Who gives a shit? What does it matter whether they wanted to use intermediaries - or who they wanted to use as intermediaries? What the hell has any of that got to do with anything? Every time you are confronted with the essential fact of the matter you dodge and weave and try to "move the goalposts" with some new irrelevancy. Why don't you just address the goddam point for a change, instead of constantly pointing somehwere else and saying the equivalent of "Ooh! Look over there! A squirrel!" ... ?

 

[AuH20]

And all the U.S. had to do was acknowledge and pursue Japan's overtures for a face-saving surrender. If the U.S. was as concerned about "saving American lives" as you claim, why didn't they do so (instead of planning for a murderously foolish and unnecessary invasion)?

Yes, leave the power structure intact that waged the war against the U.S. It doesn't work that way.

Who gives a shit? What does it matter whether they wanted to use intermediaries - or who they wanted to use as intermediaries? What the hell has any of that got to do with anything? Every time you are confronted with the essential fact of the matter you dodge and weave and try to "move the goalposts" with some new irrelevancy. Why don't you just address the goddam point for a change, instead of constantly pointing somehwere else and saying the equivalent of "Ooh! Look over there! A squirrel!" ... ?

If the Japanese were serious about surrendering after Potsdam, they would have directly contacted the Americans.

 

[nano1895]

Ron Paul, in describing how he saw a proper war was to be waged when it came to that situation said that 1. We should not be the initial aggressors but 2. When war is declared, go "all out." I put all out in quotations because he used those specific words many times. I remember at least once he followed that up with "send in the tanks, airplanes, etc." The way he said that it sounded like nothing was off limits, it was going to be a war on all fronts.

For all the people who are saying that using WMD's on civilians are not justified, would you be ok with using non-WMD's on civilians for a specific military purpose? perhaps in the case of Carpet bombing a cluster of factories to interfere with resource production that would kill civilians as a byproduct?

 

[AuH20]

For the record, I think the entrances into both the South Pacific theater and Western Europe were unnecessary. But once a conflict reaches a certain threshold, regardless of which cold-hearted bastard incited it, then it must be brought to a decided conclusion.