3 ms·

>I don't know if the bombings were morally right or wrong and can see the argument both ways. But from at least one drafted soldier's perspective they were a go

>I don't know if the bombings were morally right or wrong and can see the argument both ways. But from at least one drafted soldier's perspective they were a good thing. Soldiers volunteer to fight a war, civilians don't. If the Japanese had bombed LA, we wouldn't be having this conversation, every American would understand why this was morally wrong.

skh 8y ago
The question isn’t whether Americans would unambiguously view a fire bombing of LA as morally wrong. The question is would the Japanese view it as morally wrong? Of course the victims view it as wrong. Would the offenders?
- chris_mc 8y ago
  That's not the question, the question is "was it morally wrong to drop the nukes?" My position, based on my classes on the rule of law in warfare from a US service academy, is that civilians are an illegal target for the military and using a nuke on several hundred thousand people to take out a handful of industry is definitely outside of acts of legal warfare. It's different to target a manufacturing facility directly, even with civilians inside. So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally.
  - skh 8y ago
    The answer to the question of the morality of the bombing at least in part depends on whether one is a victim or perpetrator. You correctly stated that Americans would consider a fire bombing of Los Angeles to be morally wrong. From the viewpoint of the victim it's not hard to view such an act as morally wrong. From the perspective of the perpetrator it's not so clear cut. So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. I did not know your view of the morality of this bombing was the only one that matters. Apparently far too many people are wrong on this issue then. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally. Apparently our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get the message. Of course, the perspective taught in West Point today was not the one taught in West Point in 1945. It was not the viewpoint of Army Air Force commanders either during WWII. What is deemed moral is culture and time dependent. Hence some people - myself included - think it only proper to at least consider the views and knowledge of the people at the time the decisions are made. Since you have deemed yourself correct on this issue there isn't a point in discussion I suppose. Nothing I say can cause you to question anything on this matter. I will read any response you wish to give since I'm not so certain about my position.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

skh 8y ago

The question isn’t whether Americans would unambiguously view a fire bombing of LA as morally wrong. The question is would the Japanese view it as morally wrong? Of course the victims view it as wrong. Would the offenders?

chris_mc 8y ago
That's not the question, the question is "was it morally wrong to drop the nukes?" My position, based on my classes on the rule of law in warfare from a US service academy, is that civilians are an illegal target for the military and using a nuke on several hundred thousand people to take out a handful of industry is definitely outside of acts of legal warfare. It's different to target a manufacturing facility directly, even with civilians inside. So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally.
- skh 8y ago
  The answer to the question of the morality of the bombing at least in part depends on whether one is a victim or perpetrator. You correctly stated that Americans would consider a fire bombing of Los Angeles to be morally wrong. From the viewpoint of the victim it's not hard to view such an act as morally wrong. From the perspective of the perpetrator it's not so clear cut. So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. I did not know your view of the morality of this bombing was the only one that matters. Apparently far too many people are wrong on this issue then. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally. Apparently our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get the message. Of course, the perspective taught in West Point today was not the one taught in West Point in 1945. It was not the viewpoint of Army Air Force commanders either during WWII. What is deemed moral is culture and time dependent. Hence some people - myself included - think it only proper to at least consider the views and knowledge of the people at the time the decisions are made. Since you have deemed yourself correct on this issue there isn't a point in discussion I suppose. Nothing I say can cause you to question anything on this matter. I will read any response you wish to give since I'm not so certain about my position.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]