Which is more morally abhorrent: a surprise attack on a military base, or using the A-bomb on an entire city?

Question

It seems to me that Pearl Harbor was tragic, blah blah blah. At least they had the courage to take on a military installation.

America used the A-bomb against completely innocent men, women, children, and animals. We incinerated entire families; people just going about their normal business. We killed many more with radiation poisoning, and condemned future generations of children to be genetically mutated. People will argue, "Well in the end it saved the lives of many GI's!" How can you rationalize this by mass-killing civilians?

Say what you want about kamakazee pilots, and Pearl Harbor, but I think the America's use of the A-bomb was the ultimate low, and those who gave the order to drop it should have been hung for crimes against humanity.

Ooz, are you really saying that the women and children of those cities would have been potential military combatants? Thats pretty weak.

NoName1234, coming from someone who openly supports the KKK, I don't think I will be taking any lessons on morality from you. Thanks anyway.

Look at all the justifications...

Murdering people in mass numbers, with rationalization. Reminds me of how Hilter worked.

Answer 1

I agree. Americans tend to look at morality in terms of what's good for Americans. How many civilians have been killed in Iraq so far? 25000ish at least from what I can tell from googling the subject (that's from the first two years alone). How many people died in the WTC attack? About 3000. Last time I checked 25000>3000. How is THAT morally superior? And before I get dumb comments about my right to say things like this, I AM American... as a matter of fact I spent five years in the military.

Answer 2

Which is more morally abhorrent, *starting* a war or *ending* a war?

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a tactical move attempting to take the US out of a potential war while the use of nuclear weapons was a strategic move employed to force the Japanese government to surrender.

BTW any soldier, sailors, etc. who are attacked while not at war are as innocent as the women and children killed in Japan. Do you know that many more died during the fire bombing than did from the nuclear weapons?

War is hell. Japan started the war. That gave the US a lot more leverage when considering the options to end a war that we didn't want to be in to begin with.

I don't think we should have used the bombs on civilian populations, but that's the Monday morning quarterback syndrome. People like you and me can second-guess actions years after they take place. The fact of the matter is that we weren't there so we have no idea why things happened the way they did.

Answer 3

Wars end only when the civilian deaths become unacceptable. Soldiers would fight forever with each other if people could breed fast enough to supply a never ending stream of new soldiers. Doolittle's fire bombing of Japanese cities killed more people than the A bombs. Don't you think the Trojan horse was kind of a dirty trick and those generals who though that up should be condemned? Troy should be kicked out of the UN.

War itself is morally abhorrent. Take part in one someday so you have the credibility to judge others.

Answer 4

Pearl Harbor was a "get them before they might get us" attack. Prior to that Roosevelt had already embargoed Japan, and they feared our pacific fleet. So, they attacked. It was a wartime strategy. Tragic, yes, but that's war for you.

To end the war, we were faced with invasion of Japan. Since the Japanese had no concern for their own citizens, many of the battles were bloody with high casualty counts. Even citizens fought the invading force. Therefore, to reduce casualties to US forces and US allies, the bombs were dropped. It was a crippling blow that brought Japan to her knees. It was also quite a show of power to Stalin.

In my opinion both are tragic, but at least one was meant to end the war. There is no "humanity" when fighting a battle.

Answer 5

Is there some kind of moral scale that we use these days I haven't heard of? There is no moral war in history and killing is killing. Do you think the chinese the japanese were using biological and chemical weapons on would agree? I doubt it. Or if the Japanese had succeeded with using balloons to infect our citizens with plague? Both sides targeted civilians in WWII. Maybe you might ask someone that was in a japanese POW camp how moral they were.

Answer 6

They attacked us, and we weren't even part of the war. So, they killed innocent people also. So, we did what anyone else would have, did more damage to them than they did to us to teach them to not mess with the US. The first got their attention, and the second made them surrender. If we wouldn't have done that, you might be speaking German and saluting Hitler. So what are you complaining about?

Answer 7

After the sneak attack you're blowing off, the Japs had THAT coming to them. And it ENDED THE WAR finally!
It's war, dude...sorry you didn't like the outcome.

You sound like either a Japanese or even an Islamic TROLL. I can certainly see why you'd relate to the Kamikaze's!

Answer 8

Much as I hate to say it I agree with you here. Using WMDs on a city is like kicking some dude in the groin during a boxing match it just isn't right. One won't really have bothered me that much though, but two thats just over kill.

Answer 9

I would have to know all the details on both senarios before making a call like that

Answer 10

Bad comparison.

The A Bomb or 2 million Americans and about 5 million Japs dead when we invaded on the ground. It was a good call.