# Rush Limbaugh--Atomic Bomb a "win-win" situation for Japan **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 5, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796 "2005-08-05T21:57:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/81 "2005-08-06T22:23:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden. That’s your assertion. Your burden. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/82 "2005-08-06T22:23:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Prove it. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit Military-industrial targets. So was Dresden. In order to destroy the military targets in dresden, as it necessary to do this: > [@Wikipedia: Bombing of Dresden in World War II](#): > > Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed. An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, 62 administration buildings as well as factories such as the Ihagee camera works. I suspect few of those 24,866 houses were legitimate military targets. If one is trying to destroy factories in Hiroshima, does one need also destory virtually every building in town and vaporize tens of thousands of people in their homes? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/83 "2005-08-06T22:34:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Something that didn’t involve the deliberate slaughter of civilians. Like what? Invasion? Blockade? Continued conventional bombing? Suppose a blockade had caused food shortages and disease that killed 500,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would that have been morally acceptable than the 330,00 deaths from the nuclear bombs because the deaths weren’t “deliberate”? If a bombing raid destroyed an oil storage facility starting a fire that destroyed an entire city, killing thousands, is that more “moral” than fire-bombing the city? If you decide to invade, is it “moral” to select an invasion target with civilians in the path, or would you only invade a deserted strip of shoreline, even if it was less likely to succeed? And while you’re weighing those moral options, consider this. If you’re in command of an army, is your moral duty to minimize civilian casualties of the enemy, even if it exposes your troops to greater danger, or is it more moral to do what you can to minimize the danger to the lives you’re directly responsible for? Or, is your moral duty to decide among a group of terrible scenarios and choose the one that you hope accomplishes your goal most efficiently with what you hope is the least loss of life overall? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/84 "2005-08-06T22:43:25Z")
Quitting is always an option. We could have just called it a day like we did with Nam. It wasn’t like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor. I don’t see why it’s necessary to do any more than what is necessary for self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/85 "2005-08-06T22:59:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Quitting is always an option. We could have just called it a day like we did with Nam. It wasn’t like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor. > > I don’t see why it’s necessary to do any more than what is necessary for self-defense. Whether you’re playing devil’s advocate or not, you are fucking scum. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/86 "2005-08-06T23:01:59Z")
In 20 years, some Saudi Arabian radio talkshow host is going to say that 9/11 benefitted Americans and therefore no one owes them an apology. And he will be able to point to things that have indirectly resulted from 9/11 and the War on Terrorism–like the loss of “dangerous” civil liberties and increased power of the fundamentalist Christians in government–as evidence of this. I expect lots of people on this thread to agree with him. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/87 "2005-08-06T23:18:13Z")
> [@Silentgoldfish](#): > > Whether you’re playing devil’s advocate or not, you are fucking scum. Still no substantive response, huh? Yes, I have a sense of right and wrong which I value more than mindless flag-waving. I guess that makes me scum. I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/88 "2005-08-06T23:24:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Quitting is always an option. We could have just called it a day like we did with Nam. It wasn’t like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor. This is the stupidest and most ignorant statement I have ever seen from you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/89 "2005-08-06T23:30:59Z")
Why? If we had no immediate defensive reason to continue the war with Japan, then why not just quit and go home? I’m not talking about surrendering, just leaving. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean that seriously. What WAS the reason that we had to keep fighting Japan? I really don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/90 "2005-08-06T23:38:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Why? If we had no immediate defensive reason to continue the war with Japan, then why not just quit and go home? I’m not talking about surrendering, just leaving. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean that seriously. What WAS the reason that we had to keep fighting Japan? I really don’t know. Well, they had set on a war of agression and territorial conquest with racial overtones just as had the Germans. Do you believe we should not have fought the Germans? Among many other places captured by the Japanese was the Phillipines, at the time a territory of ours. Do you believe we should have left the Filipinos to their fate? At what point after Pearl Harbor do you believe we were no longer in danger? The day after, a year later, when? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/91 "2005-08-06T23:55:15Z")
I don’t have a problem with driving them out of US territories. After that, I don’t care. As to whether we should have fought the Germans…I don’t know. That’s a tough one. On principle I don’t support non-defensive wars, but stopping genocide seems to a good reason to make an exception. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/92 "2005-08-07T00:34:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It wasn’t like the US was physically under attack any more after Pearl Harbor. [Dec 1941](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/timeline/) > [@](#): > > War in the Philippines begins with Japanese air attacks; much of the American bomber force is destroyed on the ground at Clark Field. > > Japan takes Guam and Wake Island in the central Pacific. > > In the Philippines: Japanese forces take Manila; American and Filipino troops withdraw to Bataan peninsula. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/93 "2005-08-07T00:42:40Z")
**DtC** : I have always recognized that you were outspoken in your beliefs, which I respect. But your arguments on this page of the thread are a shining example of grade-A assholery. You posit an absolutely rediculous question, based upon your own moral view of the world, and then proclaim over and over again that you “win” because nobody will play your stupid “let’s ask a morally repugnant and loaded question” game? Well, I’ll play ball. No, I would not burn my own children to death to end a war. I would rather march myself off to the recruiting office to see that my children had a chance to grow up in peace. And if I joined up in a armed struggle of such enormous consequence as WW2, I would go knowing full well that I’d be killing humans who were probably good people, and I wouldn’t like to think about that. And I would also realize that there might be a chance that I would kill innocent women and children. And I would hate that. But yes, I would be willing to do that to stuggle against aggression and injustice, and in the hope that my family would live a better life because of it. All in all, I would take some solace knowing that I did not want to kill innocent people, rather than making a rational decision to murder my own flesh and blood to hopefully achieve the same goal. Your view is that if _you_ can’t bring yourself to kill your own children, then _you_ cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere. (I honestly wonder, if your concern for your fellow man is so sincere, why you blithely and seriously posit that the US should have simply given up and gone home after the threat to the US had been extinguished, knowing full well that the Japanese were using the heel of their imperialist boot to grind to dust untolled numbers of Chinese, Burmese, and Indonesian innocents. But I imagine you have some indignant answer for that, too.) Well, I don’t subscribe to your moral philosophy, and I expect that very few people around here would, either. I guess you win again. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back one more time for recognizing yourself as a genius and model humanitarian. I hope your delusions of saintliness massage your ego very well. But I hope you can put aside your holier-than-thou attitude for one second to consider that every day, people make choices to prefer their kin over those they don’t know. I’ve been to countries in which innocent young children are living in filth and squalor that I would never, ever want any of my family or loved ones to be subjected to for even a day. I could not stand making my family drink from shit infested water supplies or suffer from the bites of malarial mosquitos. Yet, I tacitly allow untold millions of infants to be subjected to just that, simply because my life consists mostly of going to work, driving my car, typing on this computer, and playing golf once in a while. I wish I could help those wretched children more than I do right now, but I’m not losing sleep over it. I would think that most of the world is in my shoes, even though my shoes may be fancier than 95% of the rest of the world’s population. (Thankfully, I must note, I have a job which, in a very small and indirect way, helps reduce misery for these types of people.) On second thought, don’t respond to the thought I suggested. Your putrid arrogance has already stunk up this place too much, and there’s no call for any more of it. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/94 "2005-08-07T00:47:01Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A better question would be whether I would be willing to kill that stormtrooper’s children rather than let him kill me. The answer is no. I would rather be killed than kill children. Oh, oh, can I play, too? Would you be willing to kill that stormtrooper’s children, rather than let him kill your children? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/95 "2005-08-07T01:00:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **DtC** : I have always recognized that you were outspoken in your beliefs, which I respect. But your arguments on this page of the thread are a shining example of grade-A assholery. You posit an absolutely rediculous [sic] question, based upon your own moral view of the world, and then proclaim over and over again that you “win” because nobody will play your stupid “let’s ask a morally repugnant and loaded question” game? It’s a completely legitimate question and that’s exactly why it pisses everyone off. And is there something wrong with having a moral view of the world? > [@](#): > > I would also realize that there might be a chance that I would kill innocent women and children. And I would hate that. But yes, I would be willing to do that to stuggle against aggression and injustice, and in the hope that my family would live a better life because of it. As soon as you do that, you lose the struggle against injustice and become part of the problem. You can’t beat evil with evil. > [@](#): > > Your view is that if _you_ can’t bring yourself to kill your own children, then _you_ cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere. correct. And it’s a bullet proof position. > [@](#): > > (I honestly wonder, if your concern for your fellow man is so sincere, why you blithely and seriously posit that the US should have simply given up and gone home after the threat to the US had been extinguished, knowing full well that the Japanese were using the heel of their imperialist boot to grind to dust untolled numbers of Chinese, Burmese, and Indonesian innocents. But I imagine you have some indignant answer for that, too.) None of our business. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t subscribe to your moral philosophy, and I expect that very few people around here would, either. I guess you win again. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back one more time for recognizing yourself as a genius and model humanitarian. I hope your delusions of saintliness massage your ego very well. I don’t care if anyone agrees with me and my declarations of “victory” were only in response to those who were calling me names without offering any substantive responses to my arguments. > [@](#): > > But I hope you can put aside your holier-than-thou attitude for one second to consider that every day, people make choices to prefer their kin over those they don’t know. I’ve been to countries in which innocent young children are living in filth and squalor that I would never, ever want any of my family or loved ones to be subjected to for even a day. Congratulations. So have . I spent two years in Liberia. > [@](#): > > I could not stand making my family drink from shit infested water supplies or suffer from the bites of malarial mosquitos.[ Yet, I tacitly allow untold millions of infants to be subjected to just that, simply because my life consists mostly of going to work, driving my car, typing on this computer, and playing golf once in a while. How do you “allow” it? How is that your fault? > [@](#): > > I wish I could help those wretched children more than I do right now, but I’m not losing sleep over it. I would think that most of the world is in my shoes, even though my shoes may be fancier than 95% of the rest of the world’s population. (Thankfully, I must note, I have a job which, in a very small and indirect way, helps reduce misery for these types of people.) Don’t make my position more grandiose or idealistic than it is. I’m not suggesting that anyone has a moral obligation to save the world. I’m just asking them not to carpet bomb women and children. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/96 "2005-08-07T01:02:16Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Oh, oh, can I play, too? > > Would you be willing to kill that stormtrooper’s children, rather than let him kill your children? Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/97 "2005-08-07T01:06:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your view is that if you can’t bring yourself to kill your own children, then you cannot justify risking the lives of children elsewhere. I just realized this is a distortion of my position. I’m not talking about “risking the lives” of other people’s children, I’m talking about _specifically targeting them_. I’m talking about killing them _on purpose_, not by accident. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/98 "2005-08-07T01:25:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Our children were not endangered by the Japanese, so the question is not applicable. Nice try, though. That’s silly. We long ago moved into abstraction. But I’ll change the question for you. Would you kill the soldier’s child if you knew that by doing so it would stop the soldier from killing five children of other people? Or, here’s a fun one, would you kill your 19 year-old son in order to stop a war? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/99 "2005-08-07T01:26:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Our children were not endangered by the Japanese Our children were in the Phillipines, and on [Wake Island](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/Wake/USMC-M-Wake-IV.html) Pay special attention to the link’s entries for 12 January 1942, and 7 October, 1943. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796/100 "2005-08-07T01:33:51Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > That’s silly. We long ago moved into abstraction. But I’ll change the question for you. > > Would you kill the soldier’s child if you knew that by doing so it would stop the soldier from killing five children of other people? No. > [@](#): > > Or, here’s a fun one, would you kill your 19 year-old son in order to stop a war? No. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rush-limbaugh-atomic-bomb-a-win-win-situation-for-japan/315796.md?page=6)