Truman and Hiroshima

5fish said:

@Jim Klag , @byron ed , and we add @O' Be Joyful, I know its hard to to accept that A-bomb the innocent was an evil act of our fathers and grandfathers generation. I know we want them all to be hero's but this great of destruction was an unethical and immoral act...

Click to expand...

What I accept is that the correct decision was reached for the correct reasons. What you don't accept is the fact that your personal notion of morality is only important to you.

5fish said:

There is no difference because you know if we bomb a city indiscriminately today. It would be a war crime. You and others have fallen under the notion that walking up to an innocent and shooting them is bad but dropping a bomb from 10,000 feet is not murder... You have fallen into General Lee's fear:

Robert E. Lee Quotes
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

Its hard to shot an innocent when they are looking at you but at 10,000 there on one is looking at you. Like, the drones today the more disconnected form the act the less terrible war is and the easier it is to grow fond of it...

@Jim Klag , @byron ed , and we add @O' Be Joyful, I know its hard to to accept that A-bomb the innocent was an evil act of our fathers and grandfathers generation. I know we want them all to be hero's but this great of destruction was an unethical and immoral act...

WE all want America to be what the media industry calls a in action films Mary Sue...

Click to expand...

if you want to find skeletons in the american cupboard ask diane or the people on the receiving end of the banana wars or iranians (kermit roosevelt anyone?) or chile or anybody else who's elections uncle sam didn't like.

... compared to thát stuff those nukes are small fry

5fish said:

...Turman had choices and chose the easiest of them...

Click to expand...

Or, Truman stepped up and made the hardest decision of his presidency. None of us born post-war is privvy to knowing how hard it was for Truman to make the decision. How effete that anyone in our generation would presume to know either way.

5fish said:

We killed innocent people who were on the wrong side in a war...

Click to expand...

First of all, there is no "We" here. Not one of us born post-war has any culpability whatsoever for what happened in WW2. If somebody is going to assign blame to themselves, self-flagellate, that is on them alone. (It would be reasonable to ask why would they do that, when there are so many worthy causes today where someone can actively prove their concern for the human condition).

5fish said:

... If our soldiers had gone in there a gunned tens of thousands there would have been outrage here and everywhere...

Click to expand...

"Our" soldiers? We today have no legitimate station from which to represent those soldiers; or to express outrage over activities that we couldn't in any way affect. We today have no culpability for the decisions that our previous generations were forced to make under pressure. Rather, let's do the honest and actually hard thing: make the right actions in the here and now, and gain peer approval (or the right to self-flagellate) in that manner. Is there a food pantry nearby, or a non-violent march against violence we can participate in?

5fish said:

...Why is one okay and another is not?...

Click to expand...

Obviously, because one path (the A-bombs) ended the war sooner and saved more lives. As awful the consequences that either path entailed, simply put; one was less-awful. Is this so hard to grasp?

Nobody liked the fact that a bomb had to be dropped to end the war and that some innocents would be affected. Let's put down that badge right now.

byron ed said:

Nobody liked the fact that a bomb had to be dropped to end the war and that some innocents would be affected. Let's put down that badge right now.

Click to expand...

I would respectfully debate that, as almost the entirety of the military personnel that were being prepped for transfer from the European theater to the Pacific were quite relieved that they would not have to face further combat against the Japanese. And just imagine the further damage the Soviets would have wreaked in western Europe due to such a void.

o/c I am referring to the situation at the time and not current day reflective thought. If I misunderstood your your above mea culpa.

O' Be Joyful said:

...almost the entirety of the military personnel that were being prepped for transfer from the European theater to the Pacific were quite relieved that they would not have to face further combat against the Japanese. And just imagine the further damage the Soviets would have wreaked in western Europe due to such a void...

Click to expand...

We're in total sync about that. And furthermore, as I stated...

byron ed said:

...Nobody liked the fact that a bomb had to be dropped to end the war and that some innocents would be affected...

Click to expand...

byron ed said:

culpability

Click to expand...

I have never used this word in my arguments. I am not holding any generation accountable except our nations WW2 leadership. I am complaining about is the following generations for not acknowledging that dropping the A-bomb on a city first was wrong, there was time and to acknowledge that today it would be unacceptable to do it, even to end a war.

byron ed said:

bomb had to be dropped to end the war and that some innocents

Click to expand...

The problem we will never know the outcome of the other choices Truman had for he took the ugliest path.

byron ed said:

culpability

Click to expand...

I see you are feeling guilty about America killing of innocent with the A-bomb. It is all in the word you choose...

5fish, that's the truth about war. Innocents get killed. It doesn't matter if Americans dropped the bomb on Japan or Japan dropped the bomb on Americans. The innocent still die. Sherman was right - you can't refine it. It's been that way since Cain did in Abel.

rittmeister said:

. compared to thát stuff those nukes are small fry

Click to expand...

Yes, my nation's rise to a hegemony had many stumbles in the 20th century but compare to the Hegemonic nation of the past. It was a saintly nation. The rising China to hegemonic status the world beware for they are displaying the old behaviors of the past hegemonic nations. In the 20th Century, our nation use Enlighten Self-interest to be a kinder hegemonic nation and a better world...

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.[1][2][3]
It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good"

Enlightened self-interest also has implications for long-term benefits as opposed to short-term benefits to oneself.[8] When an individual pursues enlightened self-interest that person may sacrifice short-term interests to maximize long-term interests. This is a form of deferred gratification.
An individual may choose to forsake pursuing immediate gratification by supporting and not interfering with others' pursuit of self-interest. An individual may have to sacrifice his immediate self-interest for the purpose of a positive relationship to a group of individuals to which he relates. For example, a merchant likely will maximize profit over the long term if they choose to be generous to their customers in a manner beyond the requirement of policy, say, in accepting returns and refunding the purchase price when not required to by explicit policy. By doing so, they may lose short-term gain but likely will eventually profit from increased business volume as they gain a reputation for being reasonable, honest, and generous.

Enlightened self-interest is also different from altruism, which calls for people to act in the interest of others often at the expense of their own interests and with no expectation of material benefit for themselves in the future. Some advocates of enlightened self-interest might argue that pure altruism promotes inefficiency as well.
D'Souza and Adams[9] argue that though altruism generally comes from good intentions, the outcomes of altruism might not always be good for humanity from the consequentialist standpoint. They claim that without high objectivity, consideration for the global community, and sound knowledge of the probable consequences of the altruistic act, the act is unenlightened

Snip... China lacks...

In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed, or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest", in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.
Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.
Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons.

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlig...al selfishness is a more,the good of the self.

5fish said:

...I see you are feeling guilty about America killing of innocent with the A-bomb. It is all in the word you choose [culpability]...

Click to expand...

Or, was it that I expressed feeling no guilt:

byron ed said:

...We today have no culpability for the decisions that our previous generations were forced to make under pressure...

Click to expand...

Guilt of a last strike, I ask? Where does it lie?

diane said:

War very seldom kills the guilty, you know. They scurry to other countries or back under the rock they crawled out from, or into the background as if it all had nothing to do with them. Maybe justice comes to some but man's justice is usually not enough.

Click to expand...

Or rise to power under the new masters.

O' Be Joyful said:

"Justice comes from the barrel of a gun."

Pardon me deeply for quoting Moa Zedong.

Click to expand...

Them that win, stack the courts.

diane said:

5fish, that's the truth about war. Innocents get killed. It doesn't matter if Americans dropped the bomb on Japan or Japan dropped the bomb on Americans. The innocent still die. Sherman was right - you can't refine it. It's been that way since Cain did in Abel.

Click to expand...

Cain got a nation for his efforts.

That's true! Some note that what he did wasn't unlawful as there wasn't any law...yet. That was one of the interesting things about the crimes committed during WWII - they were so far outside the pale they weren't exactly illegal!

5fish said:

Hegemonic

Click to expand...

Hegemonic? Nice. Do you know what it means?

Jim Klag said:

Hegemonic? Nice. Do you know what it means?

Click to expand...

Now now, yes or I would not have used the word ... The dominate power or nation if a given era... Now you have a basic meaning of it too...

5fish said:

Now now, yes or I would not have used the word ... The dominate power or nation if a given era... Now you have a basic meaning of it too...

Click to expand...

Not quite. To create a hegemony means not only to dominate but to control. The old Soviet Union created a hegemony in Eastern Europe. They not only dominated but controlled their satellite countries. America does not now or has it ever controlled other countries.

Jim Klag said:

Not quite. To create a hegemony means not only to dominate but to control. The old Soviet Union created a hegemony in Eastern Europe. They not only dominated but controlled their satellite countries. America does not now or has it ever controlled other countries.

Click to expand...

didn't know you do irony

rittmeister said:

didn't know you do irony

Click to expand...

Me? Irony? You know we in America are incapable of irony. You've often told me that and also that only Europeans are capable of irony.

Jim Klag said:

Not quite. To create a hegemony means not only to dominate but to control. The old Soviet Union created a hegemony in Eastern Europe. They not only dominated but controlled their satellite countries. America does not now or has it ever controlled other countries.

Click to expand...

There is not a Political Scientist professor that would argue against the fact we were the Hegemonic nation after ww2. We dominated all post ww2 international organization created right after the war. We set the ground rules for the post WW2 world would play by in the years following the war. We became the dominate power in the world militarily, economically and culturally. WE were a hegemonic nation by any definition...