Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letum
I'm not implying that conventional ways of killing large number of civilians are any better or worse.
Everyone sensible would agree that in it's self, killing civilians a bad thing.
Most people, however, believe that is is necessary in some situations in order to
achieve a greater good. i.e. the end of a war.
Generally, the dispute occurs over whether the civilian attacks resulted in greater
good than the evil they necessitated.
I wish to find out how much those who think the good produced from the act out
weighed the evil.
Thus I ask, how many bombs (or any other form of mass civilian killing) could have
been justified to achieve the same ends?
There must be a limit, as to say "as many as necessary" would mean that you could
justify kicking the last crippled man to death because he wouldn't surrender.
So...how many A-Bombs (or conventional equivalents) could you justify?
|
I guess the answer is still "as many as necessary" to make the Japanese quit Letum. As it was with the Germans, nothing but unconditional Japanese surrender was going to satisfy anyone on the allied side. |
You know you could justify some pretty terrible things under the "as much evil as is neccicary" thing....