The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

I believe you and Frank are referring to the same god. In which case, you are both right.

Neo...are you suggesting that YOUR GOD...has not set up things so that EVERY HUMAN BEING will die at some point?

If you are not suggesting that...the question stands.

We've been about this so many times, Frank. It all goes back to our dispute over the Genesis account. My God, Jehovah, created Adam and Eve to live forever. The entity who appeared in Chapter 3 is the god responsible for 6000 years of human misery.

There are many bones in this carcass you and I have chewed to the marrow. We can totally derail this thread over any one of them, not the least of which is why Jehovah would let this situation continue for even a moment, let alone 6 millenniums.

Shall we retire to another thread, Frank?

To God, the death of even a single human is an abomination. He, also, is keeping score.

Neo...since your god worked it out so that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING will die...

...how can you come to the conclusion that the god thinks each death is an abomination?

BTW, why don't you guys get some cool avatars so we can tell you apart?

No, I read it all, Neo, before I replied the first time. I guess I just don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Applying the word moral to the events of the OP is irrelevant, since both were abominations to God.

. . . Why don't you get a cool new pair of glasses so that you can see the huge differences between our avatars?

. . . .Why do you think morality comes from God? You do not think that morality is just another man made concept constructed by man just like the rest of them?
Just because man constructs things does not mean that they are equal to bombs and so forth.

Could it be possible that I am the only one who thinks it is silly to suggest that true knowledge can only come from a book?

JLN and Igm are just trying to establish some kind of moral high ground--a chimerical high ground--for their phony-baloney, self-righteous moral position. I note that neither of them has presented a concrete, realistic alternative plan that Truman could have implemented to have ended the war that did not also involve large-scale death.

I see that, as is so often the case with you, you miss the point altogether. At the time the atomic bomb was used, no one knew that. You also continue to ignore what the butcher's bill would have been if there had been an invasion of Japan. You, like all the self-righteous, superior moral types, ignore what the consequences of not using the bombs would have been, and you also have no advice on how the United States ought to have proceeded if they didn't use the bombs. As i ponited out in my first post in this thread, Japan was a defeated nation from the time they dropped their first bombs on Hawaii. They continued to fight on, after their navy was destroyed, after their air forces were destroyed, after they were driven out of the nations they had invaded, when they could no longer feed their troops or their people, when they could no longer provide medical supplies and medical care to their troops and their people, and they continued to commit atrocities against the civilian populations of China and Korea.

But clowns like you don't care, you just want to get that warm feeling inside from making yourself out to be morally superior. You disgust me as much as the author of this thread does.

and that they are popular is clear evidence that the purpose of youtube is, more that anything else, and especially more that learning--the purpose is sensationalism.

(EDIT: By the way, i take it you would have been content to see millions of allied casualties in an invasion of Japan, and to think that the atrocities in China and Korea continued while we begged and pleaded with the militarists to be sensible and surrender. You haven't given any reasonable thought to your position. Can't you see how much worse it would have been for Japanese civilians to have endured an invasion by millions of American and Soviet troops? You're just prating about the atomic boogie man and giving no reasonable thought to the overall situation.)

igm wrote:

I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between conventional bombing and atomic bombs... they kill after the enemy has surrendered and after the war is over... during peacetime.. that is not the case with conventional bombing.

Nor did the holocaust continue after the war ended... making atomic bombs in retrospect more harmful in this one respect.

It's very difficult to make the case that Truman would not have dropped the bombs if he'd of known it was certain that there would be post war deaths and stillbirths caused by nuclear radiation. If you're going to attempt a massacre then you would not be squeamish about 20% more post war casualties... probably.

Therefore the point I'm making is it is irrelevant whether Truman knew about the impact of future radiation poisoning on the population he would have dropped the bombs anyway... thus condemning people to death who were at peace because the war had ended. This was not the case with conventional bombing or the holocaust.

Something we should bear in mind if we are ever tempted to preemptively strike (nuke) an enemy in the future to end a war.

IF Truman had intentionally neglected to use our nuclear weapons
during the war, to be nice to the Japs, then he 'd have committed treason
by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The purpose, it seems to me, of attempting to draw military equivalency between Nazi genocide and dropping atom bombs on Japan duringWWII is two fold: