5 ms·
Massacre from above minimized American losses.
by vadman 11y ago
Massacre from above minimized American losses.
- comrh 11y agoWhich was traded for Japanese civilians though, no?
- belenos46 11y agoDefinitely. In general, though -all other things being equal- if I have to decide who dies, I will decide they won't be people fighting on my side.
- davidjeet 11y agoBy most approximations, there were about 200,000 causalities from the bombs and their aftermath. That said, had the bombs not been dropped, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties and tens of millions for Japanese (civilian + soldiers) casualties. Ultimately it boils down to an issue of numbers (achieved by expediency).
- ant6n 11y agoBut that doesn't justify the massacre itself.
- belenos46 11y agoNothing justifies a massacre. Or war, or any sort of nonconsensual act (I'm asserting here that murdering people en masse is nonconsensual). There's no casus belli that makes war just. But making shit stop, and stop right now? That can be useful as opposed to just.
- ant6n 11y agoNothing justifies massacre -- except if you can claim that you can make a quick one right now, compared to an 'inevitable' long one, and that trade-off is worth it. (Back to square one)
- belenos46 11y agoYeah, and that's pretty much my point. No matter how expedient and net-win a prospect like that might be, it's still not just. I think we agree, I'm just saying this because I hear way too much about 'right' and 'wrong' with armed conflict. It's all wrong -ALL of it.
- ant6n 11y agoYou say 'all of it is wrong - ALL of it'. It implies it's equally wrong. But then, conveniently, the Japanese attacked first. So defending is kinda right, but of course it's just as wrong as mass murder of civilian populations. So it's kind of like a wrong but right necessary evil.