6 ms·

There has never been a war in history where one side stops because they killed enough people. War ends when the enemy surrenders. The Japanese killed a few doz

by Aunche 3y ago

There has never been a war in history where one side stops because they killed enough people. War ends when the enemy surrenders. The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. America killed 10,000x as many during their bombings of Japan. Had they not surrendered, they likely would have killed an order of magnitude more. The only alternative would have been for the US to completely blockade Japan indefinitely to prevent them from rebuilding their military. Actually, they wouldn't be able to do that either because that would make Japan an "open air prison."

woodruffw 3y ago
By most standards, what the US did to the civilian population of Japan was an atrocity. I don’t have easy answers here. But I think we’ve lost an important piece of the plot here if we can’t look at one terrible human tragedy, and then another, and then ask ourselves whether the first had to beget the second.
- pxc 3y ago
  This has been a fairly common rhetorical move for defenders of disproportionate Israeli violence, inflicted primarily upon civilians, in recent months. I've seen it done with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden. On TV in English, which atrocity is used to justify the current and growing civilian death toll in Gaza seems to depend on who the audiences. US audiences are appealed to with comparison to Hiroshima and UK audiences, to Dresden. It's easy to read it cynically when it's an Israeli official excusing one war crime with another on television. It's stranger and sadder to see it done by an ordinary stranger online.
  - edanm 3y ago
    You think it's cynical to change your argument to fit your audience? I don't understand this. The basic argument is "If you think it was legitimate when X country did this, then what's different here?" I think it's very valid to find an X that the person you're speaking to will actually agree with.
    - pxc 3y ago
      I think politicians and government officials using an historic atrocity to justify an ongoing one is cynical. The other details are mostly incidental.
      - edanm 3y ago
        I don't think it's using an historic atrocity, it's using an analogy. And btw, the analogy isn't to Dresden, because Israel is at the very least claiming it isn't targeting civilians in that manner. The comparison is to ISIS/Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. You can legitimately think that those wars weren't justified, or that no war is ever justified. Some people think that way. I think most people don't think that way. I certainly don't, and I think a war against Hamas is incredibly justified. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything Israel does btw, nor should it.
        defrost 3y ago
        There should be no real analogy to Dresden in any case; WWI night time bombing raids were carried from altitude above flak defenses over blacked out cities prior to GPS using dead reckoning and uncertain waypoint identification. Dresden was defended as the justified bombing of a strategic target, a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Had the technology of the time included GPS positioning and laser guided missiles there would not have been widespread bombing across the broader city area "just to be sure". The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. Deeper issues go back into the history of strategies of minority groups with decision making powers on both sides that resulted in dragging a majority of civilians into this current situation.
        edanm 3y ago
        > The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. You don't know what the civilian to justified target ratio is. I don't know it. No one in the world really knows, except the actual IDF. Their estimate, last I heard, is about 2 civilians killed for every militant killed. Which is awful, but is more-or-less in line with similar wars carried out by Western countries in the past, as far as I can tell. > The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. You make it sound like a lot more precision is possible than I think reality warrants. According to Israel at least (and backed up by the US), Hamas militants are hiding in civilian clothes among civilians. No overview of the area and no GPS makes it easily possible to tell them apart.
- edanm 3y ago
  For sure we should ask the question, and it's totally valid to criticize Israel's actions. It's also totally in line to be in favor of Israel conducting a war against Hamas, but to be against specific ways in which it is fought. I think a thing that should give you pause is if the conclusion to a train of thought is "and therefore, no war is ever justified". Some people think that's true! Some people think it's better for them and all their friends and family to die than to risk killing civilians. Most people (including me) disagree with that statement.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Well, the Japanese military was so evil, that the nazis literally had to tell them to chill out. Every civilian death is a tragedy, but as with most wars, the longer it goes on, the more casualties it will take. Sometimes people simply have to make the least evil decision, as the alternative is just worse.
dsabanin 3y ago
Japanese did enough evil through Asia during WW2 to more than deserve that.
- pxc 3y ago
  Nobody deserves to die of radiation poisoning. There is no neighborhood on Earth in which all families living there deserve to be vaporized.
  - darthrupert 3y ago
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the most destructive bombings. Firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed 100K people in a single night.
    - pxc 3y ago
      I appreciate this point. That's a really valuable reminder. I think I was so caught up in the horror of radiation poisoning that I overlooked it.
- redcitylights 3y ago
  I’d caution against using the word ‘deserve’ so loosely. While you may see it as meaning ‘imperial Japan had to be stopped by any means necessary’, it comes off more like retribution. It comes off like a bloodlust for revenge. In general, ‘deserve’ should always be followed with ‘because…’. Just saying x deserves y assumes we agree on: what x did, an ethical/moral system, and that y is the best punishment/reward in that ethical/moral system.
rcpt 3y ago
> The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. They killed 20M Chinese.

by Aunche 3y ago

woodruffw 3y ago

By most standards, what the US did to the civilian population of Japan was an atrocity. I don’t have easy answers here. But I think we’ve lost an important piece of the plot here if we can’t look at one terrible human tragedy, and then another, and then ask ourselves whether the first had to beget the second.

pxc 3y ago
This has been a fairly common rhetorical move for defenders of disproportionate Israeli violence, inflicted primarily upon civilians, in recent months. I've seen it done with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden. On TV in English, which atrocity is used to justify the current and growing civilian death toll in Gaza seems to depend on who the audiences. US audiences are appealed to with comparison to Hiroshima and UK audiences, to Dresden. It's easy to read it cynically when it's an Israeli official excusing one war crime with another on television. It's stranger and sadder to see it done by an ordinary stranger online.
- edanm 3y ago
  You think it's cynical to change your argument to fit your audience? I don't understand this. The basic argument is "If you think it was legitimate when X country did this, then what's different here?" I think it's very valid to find an X that the person you're speaking to will actually agree with.
  - pxc 3y ago
    I think politicians and government officials using an historic atrocity to justify an ongoing one is cynical. The other details are mostly incidental.
    - edanm 3y ago
      I don't think it's using an historic atrocity, it's using an analogy. And btw, the analogy isn't to Dresden, because Israel is at the very least claiming it isn't targeting civilians in that manner. The comparison is to ISIS/Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. You can legitimately think that those wars weren't justified, or that no war is ever justified. Some people think that way. I think most people don't think that way. I certainly don't, and I think a war against Hamas is incredibly justified. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything Israel does btw, nor should it.
      - defrost 3y ago
        There should be no real analogy to Dresden in any case; WWI night time bombing raids were carried from altitude above flak defenses over blacked out cities prior to GPS using dead reckoning and uncertain waypoint identification. Dresden was defended as the justified bombing of a strategic target, a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Had the technology of the time included GPS positioning and laser guided missiles there would not have been widespread bombing across the broader city area "just to be sure". The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. Deeper issues go back into the history of strategies of minority groups with decision making powers on both sides that resulted in dragging a majority of civilians into this current situation.
        edanm 3y ago
        > The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. You don't know what the civilian to justified target ratio is. I don't know it. No one in the world really knows, except the actual IDF. Their estimate, last I heard, is about 2 civilians killed for every militant killed. Which is awful, but is more-or-less in line with similar wars carried out by Western countries in the past, as far as I can tell. > The issue here today is an incredibly high civilian to justified target ratio despite having centimeter precison targeting and high resolution overview of the region of interest. You make it sound like a lot more precision is possible than I think reality warrants. According to Israel at least (and backed up by the US), Hamas militants are hiding in civilian clothes among civilians. No overview of the area and no GPS makes it easily possible to tell them apart.
edanm 3y ago
For sure we should ask the question, and it's totally valid to criticize Israel's actions. It's also totally in line to be in favor of Israel conducting a war against Hamas, but to be against specific ways in which it is fought. I think a thing that should give you pause is if the conclusion to a train of thought is "and therefore, no war is ever justified". Some people think that's true! Some people think it's better for them and all their friends and family to die than to risk killing civilians. Most people (including me) disagree with that statement.
kaba0 3y ago
Well, the Japanese military was so evil, that the nazis literally had to tell them to chill out. Every civilian death is a tragedy, but as with most wars, the longer it goes on, the more casualties it will take. Sometimes people simply have to make the least evil decision, as the alternative is just worse.

dsabanin 3y ago

Japanese did enough evil through Asia during WW2 to more than deserve that.

pxc 3y ago
Nobody deserves to die of radiation poisoning. There is no neighborhood on Earth in which all families living there deserve to be vaporized.
- darthrupert 3y ago
  Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the most destructive bombings. Firebombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed 100K people in a single night.
  - pxc 3y ago
    I appreciate this point. That's a really valuable reminder. I think I was so caught up in the horror of radiation poisoning that I overlooked it.
redcitylights 3y ago
I’d caution against using the word ‘deserve’ so loosely. While you may see it as meaning ‘imperial Japan had to be stopped by any means necessary’, it comes off more like retribution. It comes off like a bloodlust for revenge. In general, ‘deserve’ should always be followed with ‘because…’. Just saying x deserves y assumes we agree on: what x did, an ethical/moral system, and that y is the best punishment/reward in that ethical/moral system.

rcpt 3y ago

> The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. They killed 20M Chinese.