Quote:
Originally Posted by Nippelspanner
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.
|
Unfortunately you are either ill educated (which can be fixed) or unwilling to know the facts (which cannot), the casualty estimates provided are the official estimates that were informed by actual casualty rates invading other islands that the Japanese considered part of the home islands (rather than occupied territory).
The only "alternatives" you have provided simply drag out the war, while civilians die in the occupied countries and, as noted from every blockade and siege in history (including that of Japan in WW2), disproportionately kill civilians of illness and starvation.
BTW, please explain why it is morally acceptable to you to starve a child to death but not blow them up?
You have access to all of this information, yet you choose to maintain an opinion that is demonstrably amoral - all so you can feel good about yourself, you'll starve civilians (it had already started in Japan), let civilians be raped, tortured or murdered in occupied countries and condemn a million allied troops to die or be crippled, and this is where it becomes relevant if you would lead them up the beach or not - since you are prepared to see them die because "nothing justified dropping the bombs" are you prepared to die beside them or do you lack the courage of your stated convictions?