american drones - not so efficient

dre · October 3, 2012

Why the need for "humility and humanity" if it prevented more atrocities like Nanking from taking place? That's my point. Why do you perceive the bombings as "astoundingly horrific acts" rather than 'thankfully we had the means to stop such atrocities from continuing even though it was at a high cost - because to have done nothing would have been so much worse?' That's what I'm getting at.

It objectively DIDNT prevent more atrocities from taking place. Ive seen it argued though that by forcing the EOJ to surrender it might have prevented a shitload of japenese from starving though.

But your point is fair. Sometimes mass murder can save lives and serve the greater good.

At question though is how those kind of decisions are morally derived. Is it ok for a human to decide its ok to sacrifice another humans life in order to save other humans? We are used to war, so a lot of people say yes. But if you boil it down to a basic moral question most people answer no.

eyeball · October 3, 2012

Are the use of drones a way to even the score??

I guess one drone is for the eye and the double tap recoups the tooth.

eyeball · October 4, 2012

Eyeball isn't a commie. More of the "libertarian socialist" type.

If I was under the thumb of a communist state I'd be it's enemy too.

How about human being, or is even that too impolitic these days?

eyeball · October 4, 2012

I think eyeball's comment, "Try thinking like an Earthling for a change," might actually be a reference to "global citizen" politics. You know, international communism and all that.

That's right, it's a slogan stuck on the bumper of my black helicopter.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

That's right, it's a slogan stuck on the bumper of my black helicopter.

Your black helicopter needs bumpers? Best watch out for you in zee skies.

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

Why the need for "humility and humanity" if it prevented more atrocities like Nanking from taking place? That's my point. Why do you perceive the bombings as "astoundingly horrific acts" rather than 'thankfully we had the means to stop such atrocities from continuing even though it was at a high cost -

Because the "high cost" is itself a terrible atrocity.

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

But your point is fair. Sometimes mass murder can save lives and serve the greater good.

At question though is how those kind of decisions are morally derived. Is it ok for a human to decide its ok to sacrifice another humans life in order to save other humans? We are used to war, so a lot of people say yes. But if you boil it down to a basic moral question most people answer no.

Further still, the question itself is an academic one, based on hypotheticals. As a thought experiment, then the answer is pretty obviously yes. But in the real world, things are rarely so simple.

So it's not much good as a political argument.

For example, precisely this argument was used, and many times, in support of the Iraq War.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Because the "high cost" is itself a terrible atrocity.

I agree. After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese should have been allowed to exercise their military force at will in order to get what it needed to run the Japanese war machine. It would have avoided the Allied atrocities that followed.

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

I agree. After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese should have been allowed to exercise their military force at will in order to get what it needed to run the Japanese war machine. It would have avoided the Allied atrocities that followed.

This is the literal opposite of my view, so I don't quite know what you're trying to get at.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

bud · October 4, 2012

sad to see that many americans and even canadians who have become the enablers and apologists for tyranny and mass murder. they condemn the nazis and the suicide bombers who attack civilians while celebrating mercenaries and torturers and try to explain away and even cheer unspeakable crimes such as the atomic bombs that were dropped on japan.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

This is the literal opposite of my view, so I don't quite know what you're trying to get at.

Not responding to the Japanese attack and letting it do as it pleased would have saved countless Japanese lives. The humanity, after all. As you can see above, others, thinks along those lines.

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

Not responding to the Japanese attack and letting it do as it pleased would have saved countless Japanese lives. The humanity, after all. As you can see above, others, thinks along those lines.

Yes, but my remark was not critical of the bombing.

I only remarkedc--in the spirit of Norman Swarzkopff, Stephen Harper, and any host of people--that actively celebrating acts of death, including neccessary ones, should be beneath us.

It has turned out to be a surprisingly controversial remark, for...some reason, as yet unstated.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Yes, but my remark was not critical of the bombing.

I only remarkedc--in the spirit of Norman Swarzkopff, Stephen Harper, and any host of people--that actively celebrating acts of death, including neccessary ones, should be beneath us.

It has turned out to be a surprisingly controversial remark, for...some reason, as yet unstated.

How is flattening Japan into a pancake celebrating acts of death? It's a fact. It happened. Aug 6th and 9th aren't holidays in the US. Japan literally deserved what it got. But, right after your post we do have bud condemning the US for their use. I guess he either prefers conventional invasion or not responding to aggression. Seeing his stance on Israel, I'm betting it's the later.

Because the "high cost" is itself a terrible atrocity.

War is Hell. Especially the War in the Pacific, where the Geneva Conventions were out the window. Would you have dropped two A-Bombs to end it?

kraychik · October 4, 2012

War is Hell. Especially the War in the Pacific, where the Geneva Conventions were out the window. Would you have dropped two A-Bombs to end it?

Of course he wouldn't. And that's precisely why people like him need to be kept as far away from political power as possible. They're not to be compromised with, they're to be defeated at the ballot box. Have a beer with them, sure, but when it comes to politics they're to be crushed.

carepov · October 4, 2012

War is Hell. Especially the War in the Pacific, where the Geneva Conventions were out the window. Would you have dropped two A-Bombs to end it?

I agree with bleeding heart and dre, and even partially with bud.

IF Hiroshima saved tens of thousands of lives by ending the war more quickly - then yes it was a good decision. This is a debatable big IF.

I cannot see a reason for Nagasaki three days later.

I also cannot see the reason for fire-bombing Tokyo.

I also cannot see the reason for Dresden.

Don't get me wrong, the "good guys" won and I am glad we did. The other side was definitely worse. But I think we could have done better and I feel sorry for all the lives lost on both sides.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

I agree with bleeding heart and dre, and even partially with bud.

IF Hiroshima saved tens of thousands of lives by ending the war more quickly - then yes it was a good decision. This is a debatable big IF.

I cannot see a reason for Nagasaki three days later.

I also cannot see the reason for fire-bombing Tokyo.

I also cannot see the reason for Dresden.

Don't get me wrong, the "good guys" won and I am glad we did. The other side was definitely worse. But I think we could have done better and I feel sorry for all the lives lost on both sides.

Nagasaki: Japan didn't surrender, thus the double tap. Plus, much effort and dollars were put into the Manhattan Project. It would be political suicide to send young American men to invade and die in the Pacific when you, as President, had the means to end it all with a powerful new weapon.

Tokyo: Curtis LeMay's move from using high explosives to fire bombs. Much of Japan' war industry was located here. Devastating results...but Japan fought on.

Dresden: Air Marshall Harris's attempt to be the guy who ended WW2 in Europe. Failed.

As for saving lives, the Allies were going to invade Japan. The plans were already prepared. Up to 7 devices were planned for tactical use (that's used in battle) during Olympic/Cornet.

I have a question for you: why did you put good guys in quotes?

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

But I think we could have done better and I feel sorry for all the lives lost on both sides.

Yes, essentially my point.

I can understand dismissing it as a platitude (not accurate, but an understandable response.)

But that lamenting the lives lost brings on the ire and disagreement...that's a bit odd.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Yes, essentially my point.

I can understand dismissing it as a platitude (not accurate, but an understandable response.)

But that lamenting the lives lost brings on the ire and disagreement...that's a bit odd.

I suppose it's because in debates such as this old war horse, there's much wringing of hands over the Japanese, but events like Singapore or Bataan don't even rate a burp or a fart from these same people.

That's why it seems odd.

bleeding heart · October 4, 2012

I suppose it's because in debates such as this old war horse, there's much wringing of hands over the Japanese, but events like Singapore or Bataan don't even rate a burp or a fart from these same people.

That's why it seems odd.

Ah, I get you.

I think this is common in debates about atrocity generally, for all sorts of reasons: partisanship, or simple personal interest....sometimes it's all too convenient, but sometimes it's quite innocent....

....in this case, I'd wager (no, I really believe) that people simply know a lot less about the latter than about the former.

And that's not entirely a politicized matter; I think the disparity in knowledge cuts straight across the debate lines on this subject.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Ah, I get you.

I think this is common in debates about atrocity generally, for all sorts of reasons: partisanship, or simple personal interest....sometimes it's all too convenient, but sometimes it's quite innocent....

....in this case, I'd wager (no, I really believe) that people simply know a lot less about the latter than about the former.

And that's not entirely a politicized matter; I think the disparity in knowledge cuts straight across the debate lines on this subject.

That and selective history. It's rather a pill to one's anti-American rant to have to point out the atrocities perpetrated against Americans that might have influenced their decision to drop the Bomb on two Japanese cities amongst other things. It's preferable to show America as an inhuman monster as per bud. Thoughtless and uncaring. Ruthlessly dealing a nuclear blow to the poor bedraggled Japanese over a war that was some how America's fault to begin with.

dre · October 4, 2012

Further still, the question itself is an academic one, based on hypotheticals. As a thought experiment, then the answer is pretty obviously yes. But in the real world, things are rarely so simple.

So it's not much good as a political argument.

For example, precisely this argument was used, and many times, in support of the Iraq War.

I read a study on human morality and there was a question designed to test this theory on a more basic level.

The question... Is it moral to sacrifice the life of a second party to save the life of a bunch of other people, based on the fact that in the end more lives will be saved.

You can boil this down to its most basic element with the following question...

Theres four guys in a hospital. One will die without a liver, the other will die without a kidney, the other will die without a heart... the fourth guy is perfectly healthy. If you strap the healthy guy down and sieze his liver, kidney, and heart then 3 people in the set will live. If you dont, only 1 will live.

Very few people in the study thought it was moral to do this.

My take on it is the difference is your perspective, and whether or not when you visualize such scenarios you put yourself in the position of the person whos going to be sacrificed for the greater good. In the hospital scenario you do... when you consider the moral implications of nuking a city on the other end of the world you dont... Those are "other people" doing the dying, "far away".

So the people who justify something like Hiroshima on humanitarian grounds, while they might be totally correct in their judgement that it was for the "greater good" would have a completely different moral spin on things if it was their city that gets to be the one sacrificed.

One distinct moral construct for "me and my friends", and another for "those people over there".

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Those poor innocent Japanese.

October 4, 2012

Because the "high cost" is itself a terrible atrocity.

Yes, of course it is; but does that mean you aren't thankful that we had the means to prevent worse atrocities, such as Nanking, from continuing to happen?

dre · October 4, 2012

Yes, of course it is; but does that mean you aren't thankful that we had the means to prevent worse atrocities, such as Nanking, from continuing to happen?

The problem is you didnt. Japan was already cut off and surrounded at that point. They were beaten.

DogOnPorch · October 4, 2012

Yes, of course it is; but does that mean you aren't thankful that we had the means to prevent worse atrocities, such as Nanking, from continuing to happen?

Unfortunately, it was this very attitude that Japan hoped would prevail in the USA. It was part of their strategy that America had no real stomach for a war in the Pacific and that Japan would thus be able to hold the vast areas it had conquered.