That wasn’t the question I asked.
(post shortened)
War is an atrocity. War is the result of failed diplomacy. Then it becomes a matter of who’s willing to do what in order to win. Carpet bombing, artillery, and fire bombing civilian targets didn’t end the war. Let’s try that new weapon. What’s it called? A gadget? Bomb A? A bomb? “A” bomb?
Which major participating nation didn’t bomb/shoot civilians during WWII (from 1935/1936/1937/1939 (your pick) to 1945)? And they were all able to justify their actions at that point in time.
Both were considered military targets.
But who’s side would you be on?
Q. Which dog is bigger-a Dalmatian or a Pekinese?
A. They are both considered dogs.
???
Hiroshima obviously, since it was not only a military logistics hub and had several key military manufactures within the city, but taking it out and 3 days later Nagasaki ended the war. What I THINK you are trying to spin towards is which was more a pure military target verse a mixed military/civilian target.
I will accept this as a more correct rewording of my intentions.
Then Pearl Harbor was more a pure military target than Hiroshima. I suppose you could say that the US Pacific fleet was more a tactical target and Hiroshima was more a strategic target, though obviously the Japanese THOUGHT that the Pacific fleet would be a strategic target when they attacked…but hindsight and all that.
OP, aren’t you poisoning the well by equating the dropping of the atomic bombs with atrocities?
Another way of looking at it is that 100 people are going to die, no matter what you do, but one course of action limits it at 100, while the other adds another 400 to the total.
I think that’s the logic that a lot of people use when looking at the use of atomic weapons vs. Japan in 1945; an invasion was going to kill some astronomically high number of people- something on the order of 250,000-500,000 US/Allied killed, and something like ten times that in Japanese military and civilians killed.
So a weapon that might kill roughly 100,000 outright (Hiroshima) and about 70,000 (Nagasaki) probably seemed like a bargain all around when confronted with the projected casualty figures for an invasion, recognizing that at least 170,000 people were going to die either way.
There was also a pretty strong notion of not really worrying about Japanese/German casualties if it ended the war earlier and reduced US/Allied casualties.
IIRC, blockading could very well have caused more deaths than the A-bombs.
My side. I want to eat them. But I can’t blame them for resisting or trying to eat us. Interests can be mutually incompatible yet understandable from the perspective of each side.
In some ways this is what makes the current situation of immigration from Islamic nations into nominally classical liberal societies so fascinating.
Operation Meetinghouse, the conventional aerial bombing of Tokyo killed more than 100,000 people, making it the deadliest bombing of the war. Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You don’t really hear about that much. Is it less of an “atrocity” because they used conventional bombs instead of nuclear ones? By some estimates, 70-80 million people were killed in WWII as a result of war, genocide, famine and disease. So it seems a bit disingenuous to pick and choose which tiny segment of that is more egregious than the others.
I guess I don’t really understand why some things are considered an “atrocity” more than others in war.
Here is another wrinkle. I will happily kill 10 of theirs to save one of mine. So if artillery barrages of the coast of France makes it safer for US troops to take the beach - so be it.
My point being that a flat “is X > Y” calculation might be a bit more nuanced when one side is your team and the other side is, well, the enemy.
Which, of course, it wasn’t.
We call that “Poisoning the Well”.
Not in the way both sides did it in WWII.
Which was more of a military target - Manilla on Dec. 29, 1941 after it had been declared an open city, or Hiroshima?
Tricky. In every conceivable case? Suppose 100 babies are born with a really rare heart valve, that could be made into a medicine to save 500 cancer patients. The babies must die to save the cancer patients?
i.e., what if you don’t have a formal legal power over the 100? Just make one up and apply it?
Lives could be saved, in the U.S., if we had a mandatory organ donation law. This doesn’t require anyone’s death: the donors are already dead! But we don’t do this, because we hold that heirs and estates have an overriding property right in the deceased’s body. So if we don’t yank hearts and lungs from cadavers, how are you possibly going to justify seizing them from living people?
A good deal of the thinking on this proceeds on the assumption that there is a significant difference between (a) actively bringing about somebody’s death, and (b) failing to prevent somebody’s death. If we construct an ethical system which looks only at the outcome of our choices, there should be no difference between (a) and (b); in each case the outcome is the same, viz. an avoidable death.
And yet our moral intuitions mostly don’t go along with this; few of us would kill the 100 babies to save the 500 cancer patients.
The conclusion is not that our moral intuitions are wrong, unless you take it as axiomatic that on outcomes-driven ethical system is right. And we have no reason to do that, do we?
I definitely think it’s moral to choose the lesser of two evils when it is absolutely inevitable that one must come to pass, such as steering your car into another car, to avoid hitting a child who has run out into the street. You will probably cause a lot of damage to both cars, but it is likely that neither driver will be hurt, your passenger will not be hurt, and you cannot see a passenger in the other car; meanwhile, there is a good chance you would kill the child.
However, sometimes there is a third choice, which is “do nothing,” or something similar. I am not in a position to reasonably judge whether there was a third choice in the bombing situation. If it truly saved lives, then maybe it was the right thing to do; however, it did make permanent changes to the global environment, and perhaps those were not worth the lives saves.
The bombing situation has too many variables. I don’t personally feel in a position to judge. I would love to know what a team of Japanese ethicists and physicists thinks, though, based on the given that Japan will lose the war, what is the most moral way to end the war? is the answer from a Japanese perspective different from that of a global perspective?