[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

but you didn't answer it!
You just waffled for another few thousand words.

Either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no other possible
answer and yet, you give neither.
Instead you talk about suicide attacks, the Iranian Gulf and other such things which
have no bearing whatsoever.

Thus, I ask again:
If you have two options, namely:
1) Win the war at 5pm by killing several billion civilians, without loss of your own troops or material.
Or
2) win the war at 6pm by waiting a hour, without loss of your own troops or material.

Would you have any qualms about choosing option 1?
If you do have problems with option 1, then why is this; given that you believe
that morality has no place in making wartime decisions.

Once again: either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no
other possible answer.


To save my time and yours, please try to limit your reply to 200 words if you can.

Your question is idiotic, to put it polite. I answered it as close as possible, on the basis on the realistic example of the atomic bombs in Japan. I couild also refer at 56 million killed in WWII - there you alraedy have your answer as well. Or the decision of the commanders on D-day to form the first attack waves of new, unexpereinced recruits not knowing what is waiting for them, to have them suffering the main losses, make the first wave landing without hesitation coming from knowledge and experience, and save the more combat-efficient veterans for later landing waves and take benefit from their higher combat profiency once the landing beach is left behind. was that moral? Immoral? Wrong question. It was the clever thing to do in that situation. that is bitter, but true.

your question is too abstract and too theoretical. Give it a real face. an example from history, if you want, or a realistic projection of a possible future scenario. Such situation where you want to sentence millions for gaining one hour, as you say, it nice for books and hollywood movies, but as long as you do not talk about allout-nulcear war, it is "gegenstandslos" (=irrelevant, without object). Refer to a realistic example. as long as you cant, you have to live with my answer as given. you are constructing it too such extremes that only an irresponsibole fool would give the ultimate answer to it. If millions are at stake, I prefer to insist knowing all the situation's details before making tactical decisions.