You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
But even in that situation you've still got to reconcile with the costs. You've got to say, "I am OK with all of those children having died, so that I may live." I find that a defensible statement. But I rarely hear people say it — because it's hard.
I guess that's my argument, here: if you want to defend the bombings, that's fine with me. There are certainly arguments to that end. But you can't ignore the consequences of them. To do that puts us in a dangerous place; an "ends justify the means" that overlooks the "means."
Truman managed to defend the bombings, while being very open about the horror, once he learned of it. He turned that into a desire not to have nuclear weapons be used ever again, if it was possible. He's a more complex figure on this than his detractors or defenders tend to know.
Its about defending (or not) whether we should have responded to the war that Japan started. By way of curiosity, would it be more acceptable if those children died in a ferocious firestorm asphyxiating in a bunker as happened in Hamburg 1943?
In general, I find "but we were already massacring civilians" to not be a good defense for the atomic bombings. (And I don't recall arguing that the US should have sat out WWII.)
Why not though? It's entirely relevant to both the practical and moral context of their usage. The firebombing campaign was inflicting the same results only slower. The problem was that the war had reached the point where area bombing of cities was considered legitimate practice.
Note, on this thread, re-reading, I think Prof Wellerstein may not realised I was referring to the fire-storm bombing of Hamburg by Allies in 1943 and so if no A bomb & invasion of Japan necessary, same fate might have faced such children. I should made it clear in text above.
Truman and everybody else who decided to drop the bomb knew women and children would die. But, in the end, the alternative (of the war continuing) was worse. (More Japanese would’ve died during Allied invasion of Japan, too). I’ve never heard anybody suggest killing kids was good
I'm not competent to make a judgement on the past. But I know that horrific weapons like this should never, never be used again. We seem to be in a proliferation moment, giving new license to Russia, N Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. We have to stop this.
All arguments justifying the bombings are based on lies. I think you know this.
All weapons are horrible. Nazi managed 2kill 40,000,000+ with no nukes.. it doesn’t matter what type of weapon - what matters is evil deed
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
