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

[Occam's Banana]

Killing children is a tough moral question.

No it isn't.

[UWDude]

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?

This.

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing. If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators. It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens". Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.

But "innocent" and "civilian" are often used together as if they mean the same thing. They don't. You can have guilty, collaborative, aggressive, arrogant civilian populations, and you can have innocent civilian populations.

There is no need for your people to die because you don't want to kill the people supporting the people attacking your people.

[AlexAmore]

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?

Say you're being shot at by someone who is directly behind a human body shield, you're implying that because of HIS actions, I lose my right to self-defense? I can't shoot back?

I think I can shoot back, and if the innocent person dies, it's on him.

This is different than the Atomic bombs on Japan. The atomic bombs were not direct self defense, they were about posturing.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Seems to me the only time appropriate would be if there was a military campaign attacking US soil in an effort to dismantle our defense and occupy our country. We would have to counter by aggressively dismantling their power structure in their country to avoid defeat. As a result there would inevitably be civilian deaths.

With that being said, should we have ever aligned ourselves Europe against Germany? Should we have ever gotten involved in Asia against the Japanese?

If you want to know who is to blame in these wars, don't fail to leave out the banksters who fund these tyrannical regimes. Germany may have never been capable of what they did, had it not been for the business interests that funded their rise to military supremacy.

[UWDude]

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?

What act of aggression did the people of China commit? What acts of aggression did the United States commit? What act of aggression did all the men in the United States armed forces who died because of Japanese aggression, make? Why did they have to die? Because of the Japanese and their imperialist aims.

I mean, one of the most moral things to do when a nation aggressively invades another, is to stop sending them the material to make weapons. Even if Roosevelt set up the fleet at pearl harbor, I still feel he was justified. Japan and Germany needed to be stopped, because the MOST moral thing one can do when they see one nation invade another out of pure aggression and empire, is to join the invaded side in the fight.

[UWDude]

'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.

1. No, the Japanese were not trying to surrender, their idea of surrender was kind of a "lets stop and keep what we have" not, "OK, we shouldn't have tried to conquer the world with Hitler, we understand our aggression caused the deaths of tens of millions of people all over the world in a few years, women, children, and soldiers. We do not deserve any of the empire we have taken with wholesale murder."

2. As I said above, Roosevelt was RIGHT to stop shipping scrap iron and oil to the Japanese. The Japanese were slaughtering people wholesale in China. Embargoes and wars are not always wrong, they are usually just implemented unjustly.

3. Why hope? Why care? History WILL run its course. The United States WILL NEVER be safe unless it changes its ways. That will not happen, so eventually, WW III will. That means American cities will be wiped off the face of the Earth, as will other cities worldwide.

[amy31416]

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.

Ayn Rand is an immoral bag of dripping feces. Think for yourself.

[tod evans]

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing. If the civilians are supporting an aggressive war into your home land, either through direct or passive support, they are not innocent, they are collaborators. It is a great injustice 6 million nazis died in their sleep and homes whilst 6 million jews died in "showers" and "ovens". Because the Nazi civilians were not innocent, but the Jewish ones were.

Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...

If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.

Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.

[robert68]

There’s no greater evil than the state of a tiny country bombing US ships and planes for a few hours, even when the bombing is over 2,000 miles from the US; of course the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

[Neil Desmond]

Civilian is too broad a group or too vague a term. Even dropping WMDs on "non-civilian" (e.g., military) targets are not necessarily justifiable, either. On the other hand, there might be circumstances when it is acceptable to subject civilians to such force; for example, a spy may be considered a civilian, yet they may be a part of a system of aggression.

Basically, there are at least a few general questions that are probably being asked, here:

Is collective punishment ever justifiable?
Do the ends justify the means?
Does an individual deserve presumption of innocence?

It is aggressors and the people who are knowingly, intentionally, and freely assisting the aggressors, and only these individuals, who ought to be subjectable to such force (regardless of whether they're military or civilian).

[rp08orbust]

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.

Far more lives could have been saved by sabotaging the US nuclear arsenal. FDR and Truman would have been forced to accept the Japanese terms of surrender that allowed their emperor to save face.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with ending WWII and everything to do with sending a message to the USSR, that message being, essentially, "We value human life no more than you do, so watch out!"

[pcosmar]

Where does the blame lie? Is it all on the individual who pulled the trigger to drop the bomb?

From the one who gave the order,, to the one(s) who created the weapon. All involved share blame.

[ClydeCoulter]

Try substituting the term American for Nazi and Arab or Muslim for Jew...

If your equation doesn't work well for you with those substitutions it would appear your logic is flawed.

Our government is the modern day Nazi, waging war in order to force other nations to accept our idea of the superior race.

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

[pcosmar]

This.

Nuking nazis is a wonderful thing. Civilians are not innocent. That's a catch phrase that means nothing.

Wrong.
Not all Germans were Nazi. There were many who opposed what was done. And there was a resistance within Germany.

You are justifying killing them for the actions of the leaders. Most of the people are manipulated into this crap (in every country) and are NOT active combatants nor willing participants.

[PSYOP]

NO

[WM_in_MO]

No.

[AuH20]

The Japanese brought those bombs upon themselves. Just examine their tactics compared to the Nazis. They killed American POWS on sight and in some cases experimented on them. Secondly, much of the military brass refused to surrender which almost led to a successful coup after the bombings. Thirdly, much of the general population was imbued with this romantic notion that the old gods protected their island sanctuary, due to fortune smiling on them in the past. In contrast, Dresden was pure sport killing with no strategic value.

[tod evans]

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

I view this as the end result of propaganda..

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.

This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game

[JCDenton0451]

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.

Good point. There is no moral way to fight a war. Once you have gotten yourself into one, your only goal should be to end it quickly and at the lowest cost possible .

However, I can't imagine modern situation, where the use of WMD in civilian areas would be justified.

[otherone]

The question isn't 'who is it moral to slaughter', the question is 'who has the authority to do the slaughtering'. That we feel it moral to create and feed a Leviathan, and then imbue it with the legal authority to slaughter anyone, is terrifying.

[AuH20]

if Japanese civilians had control of their government and it wasn't actively killing soldiers and civilians in other countries than maybe a nuclear bomb would never had to happen. Oh yeah and attacking the U.S. wasn't a good idea either, whether we stopped sending oil or not.

This is a good example for what can happen to us if we don't take control of our government back, we are in part guilty for doing nothing about it, just whining and waiting 4 years at a time to try to win a rigged game

Good point. We need to dispose of our emperor and his feudal lords before it is too late.

[The Free Hornet]

As usual, Ayn reminds us of what a despicable human being she was.

Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):

However, Rand was rightly concerned that as a matter of practical epistemology, it is difficult to know with certainty whether an accused person has truly committed a capital crime. Since a death penalty, once enforced, can never be taken back, she thought in practice it should only be applied in rare cases.

http://www.atlassociety.org/capital-punishment

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive...t-366102.html?

[Christian Liberty]

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?

Well, paying taxes isn't a choice, one might as well say that if you pay money to a burgler rather than let him kill your family, you are now guilty for his actions. Which is ridiculous.

As for the rest of those, there will inevitably be some people in the city that don't do that.

My answer is no. I'd much rather try to assassinate the aggressors directly, if necessary.

[Christian Liberty]

Ayn Rand was at least skeptical of the death penalty - it's practical application (not the moral justification):

I agree with Ayn Rand. But since the abortion providers are acting "Legally" at present, we already know who they are. As far as I'm concerned, we can skip straight to the penalty phase, in that instance.

I would have voted "Not Guilty" at Scott Roeder's trial. And every pro-lifer should agree with me.

I support executing all of them...

[Snew]

No.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I think its hilarious how the neo-cons listed Jack Hunter's youthful opposition to the nuking of 100s of thousands of non-combatants as "racism" along with his not worshipping Lincoln--and even more hilarious how Jack Hunter took it all back:

[Hunter] said he no longer thinks the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks and does not believe that neoconservative foreign policy is driven purely by oil and Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ewest-problem/

Maybe that's why Harry the former Klansman went soft and all of a sudden began worrying about "all those kids" and stopped after only two?

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/r...-harry-truman/

Maybe for the neo-cons the Klan is sort of like Al Qaeda?: sometimes they support them and sometimes they don't.

[pcosmar]

There’s no greater evil than bombing US ships and planes for a few hours, even when it’s over 2,000 miles from the US; of course the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
Killing civilians (non-combatants) is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic.

Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. It is never justified nor justifiable.

[robert68]

Yeah, I've been reading some responses here and kept thinking, "they have judged themselves and all of us".

Their logic easily justifies half the world targeting the civilian population of the US, for what the US government has done to them.

[robert68]

Wrong. military targeting military is how war is waged.
Killing civilians (non-combatants) is NEVER justified. Even when it happens by accident it is not justified, it is tragic.

Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. It is never justified nor justifiable.

I was jesting bro. Guess I should have done it better.