People, Is My Logic Incorrect?

Question

People, I require your assistance because I feel uneasy with the conclusion to a deliberation.
I was watching recently that fabulous documentary “The World at War”, discussing the two atomic bombs dropped by that fearless country, the mighty USA.
According to the US thinking behind these courageous acts, the ‘high collateral damage’ (number of civilian deaths to you and me), was acceptable because it would quickly end the war, thus in the long term, saving more lives than would otherwise be lost in the atomic bombing.

cont...

Now I can fully understand this rationale; and therein lays my dilemma. Using the same logic, would it, therefore, not be acceptable for the number of American dead in Iraq to increase dramatically over say the period remaining before the next presidential elections? The more dead, the quicker the Americans will become disillusioned with the war, and the sooner there would be a pull out of troops as which occurred in Vietnam when the number of dead Americans became unacceptable.

Is my logic incorrect?

PS. To the courageous patriotic Americans who will undoubtedly offer their advice.

1.No, I am not a commie…I ALWAYS vote for “none of the above”
2.I am not American
3.I would not be afraid to meet any courageous patriotic American, so long as I am armed as he/she is.
4.I am neither Arab nor Muslim.

Apologies to those who did not understand my question. Would a dramatic rise in American deaths bring to an end sooner rather than later, the war in Iraq, thus saving more lives in the longterm?

WOW! Thank you all for taking time to reply. Where do I begin choosing a best answer? I have considered carefully all the replies.

Mandy w and Dog lover, my reply to you is that 13 other people possessed the intelligence to grasp my point, whether sceptical or not, and secondly, 13 answers to my question do not constitute a “pointless rant”.

Freddy the newf, if one were to accept the word ‘racist’ to denote the following;
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

cont...

then I fail to see where my loathing of American foreign policy in general, and to the neo-con mentality in particular, could lead you to accuse me of being a racist. If anything, using the above 3 definitions of a racist, it describes the American foreign policy to a T.

Veritas; Your opening paragraph describes EXACTLY my reasoning. Let us estimate that because the Americans do not believe in surrendering to the “war on terror”, a further 5,000 US troops will be killed if this conflict lasts another 5 years, excluding the Iraqi casualties. Therefore, my reasoning asks; would the death of 4,000 Americans within the next twelve months, not end the conflict before 5,000 lives are lost over 5 years? Thus, a quicker short term, higher death rate would SAVE lives.

In your 3rd paragraph, you offer the premise the Americans would have unlikely quit. I can’t see them quitting in Iraq either!!

Glyntinmy; If the present American Defence staff, calculated that 5,000 American lives would be lost if this conflict drags out for another 5 years, would it not (to use American military speak), be acceptable collateral damage, to lose 4,000 lives in twelve months, if this would galvanise the American voters to demand the end to this conflict sooner rather than later?

Wolf; “…but I do think we sent some warning.” Exactly what warning was this? A warning is when you fire a shot into the air. An Atomic Bomb warning would have been to detonate the first bomb out at sea. However, being the Devil’s advocate, I would argue this was not what the American government wanted. No ‘warning’ was given or even contemplated because the bombs had to be dropped on two cities to determine the bomb’s ‘yield’ in physical destruction properties and number of deaths.

Wake up…it was an EASY choice!!

Answer 1

Logic is an alien commodity to the decision makers, so correct or incorrect I reckon you've predicted how it will play out.

Answer 2

No, your logic is fine, using U.S. history as a guide. Truman's decision to use atomic weapons was not only the right thing to do, it was the most courageous act of an American President I know about in our history, and the lives saved were on both sides in the long run. Another sad fact about wars, innocent civilians get killed too. The only problem with your logic is this, we are disillusioned and have been, that's why the republicans lost the last mid-terms, and I think, will lose the next Presidential election also. It hasn't been acceptable for many Americans from the start, the rest of the country is finally starting to agree. Another sad fact, there is no winning, only losing, except for the profiteers in Iraq, everyone involved has lost, especially America.

Answer 3

In the second world war in the east it was estimated that because the Japanese did not believe in surrender, that a further one million ALLIED lives would have been lost, excluding Japanese casualties. So, the bomb was dropped to save ALLIED lives.

Your argument regarding Iraq is altogether different, because you are proposing that, in the absence of similar drastic action, considerable loss of American lives will take place, and consequently, they will become demoralised, and quit.

You are trying to draw a parallel between two entirely different situations. To draw a parallel, you would have to imagine that the bomb wasn't dropped in WW2, and that, as a result, the Allies quit because they had lost a million lives. It is unlikely that they would have quit anyway.

Although you claim a kind of neutrality in your position in asking the question, it is perfectly obvious by your patronising language that you have a problem with the USA. You have to remember that the TV media, educationalists, and the left in general have an anti American agenda. I am a Brit. and I despise the 'left.'

Answer 4

Your logic is not correct because you are making the mistake of comparing wars. This premise unfortunately is used to the Iraq. All wars are different.

As to the dropping of the A-Bombs, they saved more Japanese lives than Americans. Japan was a nation that believed the emperor was a god and would rather die than being taken prisoners. As a pacifist I would have rather dropped the bombs away from heavy populated areas and would have ended the war.
I am not American. I am a pacifist. America is the devil I know. Japanese imperialism, Stalinism, fascism are worse devils. These devils would have suppressed your right to ask your question.

Answer 5

that train of logic only pans out if failure is inevitable, which we do not yet know. it also only applies if NONE of the possible things we are afraid of come to happen. even in the best case scenario, there would be a violent period of upheaval (civil war, but many would avoid that word the way they do now.) and many civilians would die in the short term..... so the US pulling out MIGHT result in less US deaths, but the total death toll would be higher.

and that is assuming that the ones who acchieve power when we leave (historically, best armed and/or most brutal) do not pull an afganistan and become a base of operations for terrorism (it was the pulling out of soviets and US money that led to the rise of the taliban.)

no matter what does happen, those who did not want it that option will rationalize that the other way would have been better.

Answer 6

The logic behind the atom bombing of Japan, The American Defence staff worked out that 100,000 American lives would be lost,invading the Japanese mainland. Please remember the Americans lost more lives's in the Second World War than the UK and Commonwealth combined. Please remember that before you prejudge the American Military Mentality.

Answer 7

it works both ways. Since WW2, any country majorly affected, well, that was involved besides the US and Russia, like most european countries and Japan don't ever want to fight a war again, because they have seen its destruction. So at the same time, we could bomb the ME to show them what real war is like, what it is like to lose not only your family, but everyone who speaks the same language. It worked for yugoslavia... something I give Clinton credit for

Answer 8

Yes probably. And by the way I have been looking at your profile page and have discovered that you are a very prejudicial person. Just because it is the Americans you hate doesn't put you in any different category to any other RACIST.

Answer 9

No it would not save lives because if saddam did get a nuke a mushroom cloud could obliterate any city in europe or america.

If we let hitler take over countries and not fight him in the second world war, would that mean less bloodshed or would we all be led into the gas chambers?

If you let a bully run loose, he will not just stop, he will continue to fight.

Answer 10

I dont think we can compare WW2 with any wars today. it was horrible and the bombs did stop it.

I don't think it was an easy choice. I also don't think civilians should have been hit- but I do think we sent some warning