Quote:
Originally Posted by Politenessman
OK, lets get rid of the assumption. Since you are prepared to condemn 250,000 men to death and 750,000 to be cripples (in a time when prosthetics were little better than wooden legs and hooks for hands) and you state that nothing justifies dropping the bombs, would you volunteer to be first up the beach in the invasion?
|
I thought we're getting rid of assumptions?
Why do you claim I am happily sacrificing
anyone?
Why do you claim I did not suggest an alternative,
when I did?
It is easy to say
"this or that wouldn't have worked" but as I said: Assumptions.
I can only repeat myself, if necessary.
Nothing,
in my opinion, justifies the usage of nuclear weapons to end ten-thousands of lives in a heart beat,
nothing.
It doesn't matter -
at all - if I'd be first on the beach or not, do you understand this point of view?
I do not ask you to agree, I ask you to understand.
Earlier, I said rather clearly that I do indeed understand this war crime, looking at it through the eyes of a General, a President or similar.
Still, I argue that this doesn't make it right.
Call me Ghandi if you wish, but this is my position on nuclear weapons.
As to willingly let them starve - I never said that and honestly I think it is a very different thing to drop 2 bombs, killing thousands, or be passive about it and give things a CHANCE to maybe work out not as bad as we all predict today.
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette."
All these claims about saving millions of lives (by killing ten thousands of civilians) and the quick ending of the war which would have ended in a bloodshed never seen before - is all just speculation.
In the end,
I wouldn't drop these bombs because
"maybe...".
No.