Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB
None of that makes it acceptable. Dropping atomic bombs on civilians is not acceptable no matter how someone tries to spin it or write it in the history books. Man will always find a way to justify his horrific actions and senseless murder of others.
|
The moral choice is not to begin war. I'm all for not having a war and I'm especially against never-ending wars against concepts like the war on terror or the war on drugs. However, during a war of last resort (like WWII was) any weapon that ends the war with fewer casualties and less damage is a good thing. The atomic bombs saved many more lives than they ended and did horrific damage on tiny locations compared o the widespread horrific damage that was ongoing on a global scale before they were dropped. As a moral exercise, BEFORE entering a war one should ask if we are wiling to use nuclear weapons. If the situation is not dire enough to say yes, then don't enter the war.thats why I was against the Iraq invasion but feel differently about our mission to destroy terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Germany with another eighteen months of R&D would have been a much bigger threat to life than those two nukes.
As for intimidating Russia, that wasn't needed. They had just lost millions of people In a very bloody war and were not itching for a fight when the war ended. That friction started later and our use of the nukes is part of what caused it. The world dislikes a single nation having a huge militaristic advantage. It's another part of why cutting our military budget and spending more wisely would not hurt our national security. A narrower gap makes other nations feel more safe and less aggressive.