View Poll Results: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

Voters
147. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    114 77.55%
  • Yes

    33 22.45%
Page 1 of 33 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 973

Thread: Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

  1. #1

    Default Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

    Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?

    This news today prompted me to think up above Q.

    Japan Marks 68th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing

    By AP / Shizuo Kambayashi
    Aug. 05, 2013







    Shizuo Kambayashi / APJapanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, third from left, accompanied by Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum Director Kenji Shiga, left, looks at a diorama of Hiroshima city after the Aug. 6, 1945 atomic bombing, at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, western Japan, Aug. 6, 2013




    (HIROSHIMA, Japan) — Japan marked the 68th anniversary Tuesday of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima with a somber ceremony to honor the dead and pledges to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons.
    Some 50,000 people stood for a minute of silence in Hiroshima’s peace park near the epicenter of the early morning blast on Aug. 6, 1945, that killed up to 140,000 people. The bombing of Nagasaki three days later killed tens of thousands more, prompting Japan’s surrender to the World War II Allies.

    Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, among many dignitaries attending the event, said that as the sole country to face nuclear attack, Japan has the duty to seek to wipe out nuclear weapons.

    The anniversary comes as Japan is torn over restarting nuclear power plants shut down since the massive


    Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/08/05/japan-marks-68th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-bombing



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    It's better for a hundred bad guys to go free than for one innocent person to be killed needlessly, IMO.
    "When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game. The establishment will irritate you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight, because once they've got you violent then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humor. "

    ---John Lennon


    "I EAT NEOCONS FOR BREAKFAST!!!"

    ---Me

  4. #3

    Default

    Voted no.

    But there are many who attempt to justify it.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    Are there times when dropping WMDs on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified?
    Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?

  6. #5

    Default

    bdtf, interesting complicated Qs and reserving the right to get back with more detailed answer but for now I would say that there are bound to be many many innocent people in the civilian populated buildings of a city. To make it simple, children don't pay taxes or enable a regime .. even though many adults would fall in same category too, even if your implied argument is accepted on face value for the sake of an argument.

  7. #6

    Default

    No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    bdtf, interesting complicated Qs and reserving the right to get back with more detailed answer but for now I would say that there are bound to be many many innocent people in the civilian populated buildings of a city. To make it simple, children don't pay taxes or enable a regime .. even though many adults would fall in same category too even if your implied argument is accepted on face value for the sake of an argument.
    I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?

  9. #8

    Default

    The use of weapons of mass destruction on populated areas is always immoral. They indiscriminately kill, regardless of whether someone is a lawful combatant or a civilian. There is no way to mitigate collateral damage, which must be done in any military offensive. If you believe in just war theory then you must take into account the effect of your actions on innocents.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    No. The attacking of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc were some of the worst war crimes in all of human history.
    Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?

  11. #10

    Default

    Deliberately and intentionally killing innocent human life is murder. Deliberately and intentionally killing innocent human life en masse is mass murder. Dropping a WMD on a civilian population is both deliberate and intentional.

    The mere thought of so many lives being snuffed out in an instant, all at once, is absolutely heartbreaking.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed View Post
    Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?
    The blame rests on those who ordered the attacks, but also on those who followed the orders.

  13. #12

    Default

    No, but the apparent justification comes from those that know better instilling fear into their population that is greater than the fear of going to battle, or the patriotic emotion instilled through the propaganda is such that they feel a great euphoria to be the servant to the same.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  14. #13

    Default

    Not to forget the massive bombing campaigns in the months prior to the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs.

    "The table below notes the effect of conventional bombing campaigns on Japanese cities:



    City Name % Area Destroyed
    Yokohama 58.0
    Tokyo 51.0
    Toyama 99.0
    Nagoya 40.0
    Osaka 35.1
    Nishinomiya 11.9
    Shimonoseki 37.6
    Kure 41.9
    Kobe 55.7
    Omuta 35.8
    Wakayama 50.0
    Kawasaki 36.2
    Okayama 68.9
    Yawata 21.2
    Kagoshima 63.4
    Amagasaki 18.9
    Sasebo 41.4
    Moji 23.3
    Miyakonojo 26.5
    Nobeoka 25.2
    Miyazaki 26.1
    Ube 20.7
    Saga 44.2
    Imabari 63.9
    Matsuyama 64.0
    Fukui 86.0
    Tokushima 85.2
    Sakai 48.2
    Hachioji 65.0
    Kumamoto 31.2
    Isesaki 56.7
    Takamatsu 67.5
    Akashi 50.2
    Fukuyama 80.9
    Aomori 30.0
    Okazaki 32.2
    Oita 28.2
    Hiratsuka 48.4
    Tokuyama 48.3
    Yokkaichi 33.6
    Ujiyamada 41.3
    Ogaki 39.5
    Gifu 63.6
    Shizuoka 66.1
    Himeji 49.4
    Fukuoka 24.1
    Kochi 55.2
    Shimizu 42.0
    Omura 33.1
    Chiba 41.0
    Ichinomiya 56.3
    Nara 69.3
    Tsu 69.3
    Kuwana 75.0
    Toyohashi 61.9
    Numazu 42.3
    Choshi 44.2
    Kofu 78.6
    Utsunomiya 43.7
    Mito 68.9
    Sendai 21.9
    Tsuruga 65.1
    Nagaoka 64.9
    Hitachi 72.0
    Kumagaya 55.1
    Hamamatsu 60.3
    Maebashi 64.2

    The attack on these major cities caused as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths, while displacing as many as 5,000,000."

    http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217
    Last edited by CPUd; 08-06-2013 at 12:19 AM.

  15. #14

    Default

    CPUd, I've been to town in Germany that are as small as 5000 inhabitants that were obliterated during the war. What possible moral justification is there to carpet bomb rural villages?

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    CPUd, I've been to town in Germany that are as small as 5000 inhabitants that were obliterated during the war. What possible moral justification is there to carpet bomb rural villages?
    I'm not sure there is one.


    This would have been the guy to ask:
    Last edited by CPUd; 08-06-2013 at 12:25 AM.

  17. #16

    Default

    It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes. If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate.

    In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krugminator View Post
    It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes. If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate.

    In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.
    What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed View Post
    Are you defending yourself against aggression? Are the people who are for some reason labeled "civilians" responsible for the aggression? Did the "civilians" elect aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" voluntarily act as informants in support of the aggressive leaders? Do the "civilians" provide financial support to the aggressive leaders? Do they pay taxes? If the answers are "yes", then what makes the "civilians" "innocent"? Would dropping the WMD's deter future aggression?
    IIRC, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had higher numbers of "elite" members of Japanese society in them, possibly due to the fact that those cities had not been bombed. Don't know that it was factor in the bombing of those cities.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  20. #19

    Default

    Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified
    What type of WMDs? Pressure cookers? Anthrax? 5000lb bombs?
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    What act of aggression did German civilians in Dresden commit against the US? What crime did the thousands of murdered children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commit against the US?
    That's why I said adults, because, to me, killing adults from an enemy government is clear cut. Killing children is a tough moral question.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krugminator View Post
    That's why I said adults, because, to me, killing adults from an enemy government is clear cut. Killing children is a tough moral question.
    Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Killing civilians is immoral, no matter what their government has done.
    I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.

    Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?
    AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krugminator View Post
    It's likely to be abused, but the answer is a very easy yes. If a foreign government attacks the United States, then any force necessary to eliminate the threat is appropriate.

    In the case of Japan they had the option to surrender. There was no major active movement to overthrow the government, so the Japanese adults were not innocent. The Japanese were on the side of Hitler and they committed an act of aggression against the United States.
    'Scuse me?

    The Japanese were trying to surrender- they were ignored.

    Their "act of aggression" on the US was pushed into place by FDR, who took all their oil sources from them and then waited for them to attack. Pearl Harbor was put into place by FDR; he had information that it was coming and he let it happen so that people would rally to jump into WWII, which was not popular among Americans.

    As far as a major move to overthrow the government, let us all hope that some conqueror doesn't have that same feelings toward Americans in the future that you have for the Japanese. I think we'd look a whole lot guiltier.
    There is no spoon.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krugminator View Post
    I think I am on the same side as Ayn Rand with this.
    As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

    I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?
    Last edited by eduardo89; 08-06-2013 at 12:54 AM.

  26. #25

    Default

    Who is innocent ? , Who is not ? Who gets to decide ? This will not matter in terms of military victory , I imagine .....

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

    I guess you and Ayn would agree that it would be justified for a Pakistani whose child was killed by a drone strike ordered by Obama to murder your child?
    I thought about that and I said it was likely to be abused. Its a tough question when you aren't attacking aggressive governments, but instead going after individuals. Its a very gray area. I wish Ayn Rand were around to tell me what to think.

  28. #27

    Default

    The only people that would say yes are those making a living off the missile factory. Many of them may not agree though.

  29. #28

    Default

    just because a small segment of humanity during .00000000000000000000001% of our existence says it's wrong doesn't mean the other 99.999999999999999999% that engaged in or supported or cheered or didn't have a problem with mass murder were wrong.

    all relative.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by better-dead-than-fed View Post
    I don't want to be offensive, but I am trying to raise every angle to your question, for the sake of interesting discussion. For the sake of extreme example, what if you're facing a super-villain who is literally seconds away from launching a global nuclear attack that will extinguish all life on the planet, and the villain has fashioned himself armor made out of living children; is the only justifiable option to stand back and watch him launch the attack?
    Very good question, BDTF. Apparently, the majority of respondents in this thread would just stand back and watch the super-villain destroy humanity.

  31. #30

    Default

    I'm sorry, but Japan attacked US and killed a number of Americans. Dropping those bombs ended the war immediately. If it saved American lives and it assuredly did, then so be it.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 33 12311 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Los Angeles police officers deemed justified in black man's slaying: L.A. Times
    By aGameOfThrones in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2015, 06:15 PM
  2. US planning to bomb Iran civilian infrastructure - NY Times
    By DamianTV in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 07:36 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-19-2011, 01:54 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-15-2010, 06:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •