Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
I agree with Conor. If our points aren't clear, then there's no point in writing another word.
It is curious, to me at least, that this 67-year old episode seems so important for some. There are PLENTY of issues (in fact, a nearly unending number of them) to get morally incensed about. They're all too common, in fact. On this one, however, I give Truman the benefit of the doubt and move on.
Perhaps it helps to shed some historical/military perspective on the atomic bomb. At the time, it was perceived as an ordinance -- nothing more, nothing less. It was either tens of thousands of pounds of TNT, or one ten-thousand pound bomb. There was no nuclear specter. There was no social or moral association with this weapon. It was deemed the most efficient to deliver, in terms of the potential payoff. Remember, this is from a country that fire-bombed much of Germany and Japan. Effect of a nuclear weapon (whatever that is)? Pshaw.
The nuclear nightmare emerged longer after WWII was finished, thanks in (no) part to "concerned scientists."
Conor Dary wrote:Jazz, that is really not the point at all. But I said all this last year....
Anyways, I don't see any point in going on. I really have nothing more to add. We will just have to disagree.
Reasonable minds can agree and disagree. On the one hand, you, kuha and I agree that the U.S. in general, and Truman in particular, had the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve its political goals in WWII. On the other hand, we seem to disagree on whether other nations and subnational groups have the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve their political goals.
jazzcyclist wrote:On the one hand, you, kuha and I agree that the U.S. in general, and Truman in particular, had the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve its political goals in WWII. On the other hand, we seem to disagree on whether other nations and subnational groups have the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve their political goals.
Jazz, I reject your logic throughout this thread; and I reject this characterization of the issue. It is YOUR characterization, and yours alone.
Conor Dary wrote:Jazz, that is really not the point at all. But I said all this last year....
Anyways, I don't see any point in going on. I really have nothing more to add. We will just have to disagree.
On the one hand, you, kuha and I agree that the U.S. in general, and Truman in particular, had the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve its political goals in WWII.
No, I don't agree on that at all. Truman wanted to end the war. End of story. I quit.
Too lazy to look back, but I'm sure I made this unalterable point - there was NO decision. The bomb was made to deploy and it was deployed. In a WAR, it was the ONLY option.
jazzcyclist wrote:On the one hand, you, kuha and I agree that the U.S. in general, and Truman in particular, had the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve its political goals in WWII. On the other hand, we seem to disagree on whether other nations and subnational groups have the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve their political goals.
Jazz, I reject your logic throughout this thread; and I reject this characterization of the issue. It is YOUR characterization, and yours alone.
Well, there's no doubt that you think it's morally acceptable to massacre civilians. In which way am I misrepresenting you?
Conor Dary wrote:Jazz, that is really not the point at all. But I said all this last year....
Anyways, I don't see any point in going on. I really have nothing more to add. We will just have to disagree.
On the one hand, you, kuha and I agree that the U.S. in general, and Truman in particular, had the moral authority to massacre civilians in order to achieve its political goals in WWII.
No, I don't agree on that at all. Truman wanted to end the war. End of story. I quit.
And he ended the war by massacring civilians. You can't sweep that little inconvenient truth under the rug.
