Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Because a lot more lives would have been lost in an invasion than in the bombing. It was the right thing to do. Not a happy event but fact.
|
The way I see it is thus:
If the objective of Hiroshima was to shorten the war then the same objective could have been achieved to better effect prior to Hiroshima by accepting the Japanese ceasefire agreement. Thus, any utilitarian argument supporting the bombing of Hiroshima is invalid because you can not argue in favor of shortening the war by means of nuclear weapons, but reject shortening the war even more without the use of nuclear weapons by means of the ceasefire and later surrender conditions proposed by the Japanese.
I know of no non-utilitarian arguments in favor of the bombing.