3 ms·

I'm wondering what the other ethical positions would have done when choosing between dropping a nuke on a city or going ahead with a land invasion. Neither of w

I'm wondering what the other ethical positions would have done when choosing between dropping a nuke on a city or going ahead with a land invasion. Neither of which has anything to do with exploitation, and everything to do with ending a war.

surgical_fire 3y ago
Ehh, I think the usage of atomic bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, and everything to do with military dick-waving. "We have nukes, and we're not afraid to use it". Well, it's war. Discussing morality of actions in war is a fool's errand. Typically the actions of the winners are morally justifiable because they won, and for this reason they tend to write history.
- goatlover 3y ago
  The thinking was Japan, like Germany, had to unconditionally surrender. Whether that was from firebombing, nuking or a land invasion. Germany took a land invasion by both fronts. I'll agree that morality goes out the window in war. You try to win and then justify what you had to do to win.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Hint: Most countries in Japan's position would surrender after being nuked once. Actually most countries in Japan's position, with the Soviets charging in from one flank and the Americans on the other, would have surrendered long before that. And, given that the leader finally did surrender after being told twice, most countries wouldn't have a junta conspiring to assassinate him so that they could keep fighting. Japan wasn't -- and isn't -- "most countries." Monday morning quarterbacking is always fun but I'm personally glad I wasn't in that particular decision loop in the Oval Office. As goatlover so wisely suggests, war is basically a contest to see who can pull the most horrific atrocities on the other guy. We ultimately won the game but Japan gave it one hell of an effort. They would certainly have done the same to us, given the technology, and without as much as 1% of the guilty feelings afterward.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    > They would certainly have done the same to us And it would later be justified as it being necessary for the US to surrender, and maybe now we would be discussing in Japanese how a couple of US cities are much nicer some 70 years after being nuked. Either way, this is already far beyond the point of the thread.

surgical_fire 3y ago

Ehh, I think the usage of atomic bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, and everything to do with military dick-waving. "We have nukes, and we're not afraid to use it". Well, it's war. Discussing morality of actions in war is a fool's errand. Typically the actions of the winners are morally justifiable because they won, and for this reason they tend to write history.

goatlover 3y ago
The thinking was Japan, like Germany, had to unconditionally surrender. Whether that was from firebombing, nuking or a land invasion. Germany took a land invasion by both fronts. I'll agree that morality goes out the window in war. You try to win and then justify what you had to do to win.
CamperBob2 3y ago
Hint: Most countries in Japan's position would surrender after being nuked once. Actually most countries in Japan's position, with the Soviets charging in from one flank and the Americans on the other, would have surrendered long before that. And, given that the leader finally did surrender after being told twice, most countries wouldn't have a junta conspiring to assassinate him so that they could keep fighting. Japan wasn't -- and isn't -- "most countries." Monday morning quarterbacking is always fun but I'm personally glad I wasn't in that particular decision loop in the Oval Office. As goatlover so wisely suggests, war is basically a contest to see who can pull the most horrific atrocities on the other guy. We ultimately won the game but Japan gave it one hell of an effort. They would certainly have done the same to us, given the technology, and without as much as 1% of the guilty feelings afterward.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > They would certainly have done the same to us And it would later be justified as it being necessary for the US to surrender, and maybe now we would be discussing in Japanese how a couple of US cities are much nicer some 70 years after being nuked. Either way, this is already far beyond the point of the thread.