Truman's cabinet predicted 725,000 american casualties 200,000 of which would have been deaths and 28 million japanese civillian deaths not including hundreds of thousands of japanese soldier's deaths. Why is it then, that people still believe that the bombing was unethical? Am I wrong in saying that it was the lesser of two evils? Also, why does no one comment on the fact that we killed more japanese with napalm than with the bombs? Is it worse to kill with a gun than with a fist? Or in this case, worse to kill with fire than with a bomb?
2007-12-09 15:52:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. I have spoke to those who disagree with our decision to use the atomic bomb, and their opinion is just based on nothing more than pure sentiment.
Nobody really wants to kill civilians. It's a terrible thing. But, as you said, we had to chose between the lesser of two evils. We killed Japanese civilians. But said another way, we killed Japanese civilians who wanted to take over the world and destroy the United States.
Most people don't mention the napalm attacks because most do not know. Again, it is war. It's easier for us to sit back decades later at our laptops and make our judgements. But in war, it is either killed or be killed. That's why those American causalty estimates were so influential. As you said, we chose the lesser of two evils. It's never pleasant to kill non-combatants, but we won the war.
And if you have any doubt, imagine yourself as a soldier being deployed to war tomorrow. Would your sentiments change?
2007-12-09 16:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by ctown 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War is not based in ethics, it is war. You failed to mention the Japs in the Philippines on the Bataan march, would bayonet and beat American soldiers when they fell, then would push men along the march into ditches, take fuel and burn them alive. They would take Filipino girls and rape them and when done slit their throats as they held their mouths closed. The reason is their superior race and didn't want to leave behind a mongrel mixed race.This was one day after Pearl when they invaded the Philippines, long before the nukes. Two million Filipinos were killed estimated, far more than in their military. Ethics?
2007-12-09 16:23:21 · answer #2 · answered by AJ 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Saving lives and ending a brutal war is always ethical.
2007-12-09 19:23:31 · answer #3 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That happened before I was born. Can't you complain about something that's in the news today. No matter what I think the bomb can't be not dropped.
2007-12-09 16:03:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saving lives is ethical, but whose lives were saved? They chose to save military lives and traded innocent women and children for those lives! They traded civilians for military,and it was dead wrong!
2007-12-10 03:21:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it was a war. Ethics have no place in it.. It's kill or be killed.
2007-12-09 16:37:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe not ethical, but very effective.
2007-12-10 14:31:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
killing innocent civilians is not ethical in any circumstances.
my opinion
2007-12-09 16:09:53 · answer #8 · answered by Theta40 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋