3 ms·

how so?

by verinus 11y ago

how so?

rz2k 11y ago
The cost in Iraqi lives and destruction has probably been a few times greater than that from the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it would have been quicker. Whether it would have lead to functioning government that wasn't expansionist and that served Iraqis without prejudice is another question entirely. We never really discussed the aims to be achieved by the use of conventional arms either though. One could also weigh the thousands of US soldiers lives lost and >$1T cost against the cost of a few nuclear warheads. I don't think it's too difficult to see how the arguments to justify two specific uses of atomic bombs are entirely dependent on their context, and making them sound like general rules probably does people a disservice.
- Retra 11y ago
  It wouldn't have been quicker, though. Anyone can see that: if you nuke Iraq, you'd face a massive, worldwide, prolonged counter-movement. The fact that this didn't happen during WW2 means that it was one of the only times you could actually get away with using nuclear weapons, and the people making that decision knew that they could get away with it. If they couldn't, they wouldn't have used them. They relied on ignorance that simply doesn't exist today.
  - hga 11y ago
    They relied on ignorance that simply doesn't exist today. I think that goes a little to far. More like they "relied" on the context of a World War that had butchered 75 million people, 1/3 of that in the Pacific. And as I've noted elsewhere, was butchering 250,000 people per month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, and was looking to kill maybe a million Allied soldiers, with no upper limit for the Japanese population, as had just been demonstrated in Okinawa.
  - whitenoice 11y ago
    Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Was it the right thing to do - I don't think so. I'm sure when they nuked they knew the radiation effects would affect these regions for years to come. http://zazenlife.com/2011/12/29/the-after-effects-of-the-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-nagasaki/ http://zazenlife.com/2011/12/29/the-after-effects-of-the-ato...
  - rz2k 11y ago
    Yes, being the only country with an unknown number of warheads, plus an undamaged domestic industrial base had a lot to do with it, too. My point being that his description of the moral calculus for the decision has little to do with any scenario without the same context. But not only because of the results, because the justification had to do with the necessity of defeating Imperial Japan rather than a comparison of the costs of the different ways of achieving that defeat. That is the criticism of the oversimplified ends justify the means justification for the use of atomic bombs in Japan. It wasn't about ending the war, it was about achieving aims that had been determined were imperative, through war, with a lesser loss of life.

how so?

by verinus 11y ago

how so?

rz2k 11y ago

The cost in Iraqi lives and destruction has probably been a few times greater than that from the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it would have been quicker. Whether it would have lead to functioning government that wasn't expansionist and that served Iraqis without prejudice is another question entirely. We never really discussed the aims to be achieved by the use of conventional arms either though. One could also weigh the thousands of US soldiers lives lost and >$1T cost against the cost of a few nuclear warheads. I don't think it's too difficult to see how the arguments to justify two specific uses of atomic bombs are entirely dependent on their context, and making them sound like general rules probably does people a disservice.

Retra 11y ago
It wouldn't have been quicker, though. Anyone can see that: if you nuke Iraq, you'd face a massive, worldwide, prolonged counter-movement. The fact that this didn't happen during WW2 means that it was one of the only times you could actually get away with using nuclear weapons, and the people making that decision knew that they could get away with it. If they couldn't, they wouldn't have used them. They relied on ignorance that simply doesn't exist today.
- hga 11y ago
  They relied on ignorance that simply doesn't exist today. I think that goes a little to far. More like they "relied" on the context of a World War that had butchered 75 million people, 1/3 of that in the Pacific. And as I've noted elsewhere, was butchering 250,000 people per month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, and was looking to kill maybe a million Allied soldiers, with no upper limit for the Japanese population, as had just been demonstrated in Okinawa.
- whitenoice 11y ago
  Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Was it the right thing to do - I don't think so. I'm sure when they nuked they knew the radiation effects would affect these regions for years to come. http://zazenlife.com/2011/12/29/the-after-effects-of-the-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-nagasaki/ http://zazenlife.com/2011/12/29/the-after-effects-of-the-ato...
- rz2k 11y ago
  Yes, being the only country with an unknown number of warheads, plus an undamaged domestic industrial base had a lot to do with it, too. My point being that his description of the moral calculus for the decision has little to do with any scenario without the same context. But not only because of the results, because the justification had to do with the necessity of defeating Imperial Japan rather than a comparison of the costs of the different ways of achieving that defeat. That is the criticism of the oversimplified ends justify the means justification for the use of atomic bombs in Japan. It wasn't about ending the war, it was about achieving aims that had been determined were imperative, through war, with a lesser loss of life.