There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

steddyeddy

This is the quote in full:

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. They both kill innocent people for political reasons

It was made by one of my favorite politicians Tony Benn in an interview about Sinn fein and Irish republicanism. Tony Benn was one of the few who wanted the British government to engage in talks with Sinn Fein and he supported Mandela when the British government were calling him a terrorist.

Anyway is there a moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber ect and if so why?


EDit: To give my opinion I don't see a moral difference at all. I think any type of violence is morally abhorrent but sometimes it is understandable eg when certain peoples are being oppressed etc. Note I said understandable and not justifiable.

Cabaal

There's no difference between a suicide bomber or sum scumbag who plants a bomb in a town centre or outside a police station to try kill people...often innocent people

steddyeddy

Cabaal wrote: »

There's no difference between a suicide bomber or sum scumbag who plants a bomb in a town centre or outside a police station to try kill people...often innocent people

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

The Diabolical Monocle

Or a group of soldiers who shoot down on a peaceful protest from a fortified elevated position.

SEPT 23 1989

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

They started it,thats how

P.Walnuts

I remember watching a documentary where a British soldier was calling the Taliban cowards for planting roadside bombs, wanting then to come out and fight like men etc...

He then climbed into an Apache to hover silently 100 feet in the air and pick off unsuspecting targets.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They started it,thats how

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

3rdDegree

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

Nino Brown

steddyeddy wrote: »

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

That depends on your definition of a "Bad Guy".

Terry1985

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well the Japs are nuking America now with radiation from the Fukushima plant.

steddyeddy

3rdDegree wrote: »

The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

So killing innocent civilians is the way to go? I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. I would like to point out that numerous "Terrorist" groups would say that the only way to get X to stop fighting is to use force.

steddyeddy

Nino Brown wrote: »

That depends on your definition of a "Bad Guy".

Bad guy is a very black and white term but I wouldn't apply it to thousands of civilians who who were nuked.

The Diabolical Monocle

steddyeddy wrote: »

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

Terry1985

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

banquo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.

steddyeddy

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

The people who were raping China such as those in charge of unit 731 or emperor Hirohito got away scot free. In fact the scientists involved in dissecting people alive in unit 731 worked in Japan's health sector after the war!

steddyeddy

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

I would classify some soldiers as such. They often are convinced that a war is justifiable moral eg Vietnam or Iraq

Courtesy Flush

All war is terror. And all those who engage in it should be called terrorists.

Nino Brown

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

That's my point. In a war like WW2, the line between civilians and soldiers is very blurred. If you're a civilian one day, and conscripted the next, do you go from "good guy" to "bad guy"?

Nino Brown

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

All war is terror. And all those who engage in it should be called terrorists.

So when Hitler invaded Poland, the polish army were terrorists for defending Poland, thus engaging in war?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Whether its a jet bomber or a grunt with his boots on the ground we all try to be stealthy.. My uniform is camo, my boots are soft & quiet, I've no metal buckets on any of my equipment even my weapon has a flash hider.. And all soldiers go to war for political reasons I guess.

suicide_circus

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

Same relationship between a politician and a soldier

dotsman

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

steddyeddy

Nino Brown wrote: »

So when Hitler invaded Poland, the polish army were terrorists for defending Poland, thus engaging in war?

Well my view of war/terror is that violence and death are abhorrent but some causes are more justifiable than others. The example you used above is certainly a justifiable one imo.

Nino Brown

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my view of war/terror is that violence and death are abhorrent but some causes are more justifiable than others. The example you used above is certainly a justifiable one imo.

The problem with war is, everyone thinks they're justified.

P_1

Is killing more justified if it's done in the name of nation states? No, killing is killing is killing

Daqster

dotsman wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke.

Yeah, it'd ruin your day alright.

An Coilean

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

And your average soldier?

steddyeddy

dotsman wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

That's fair enough but terrorist actions often kill far less to support a popular cause and these are vilified in the process. Eg the ANC fought against an anti democratic apartheid supporting government and were labelled terrorists.

steddyeddy

An Coilean wrote: »

And your average soldier?

Depends on the war. The Iraq war was based on imaginary weapons.

steddyeddy

Nino Brown wrote: »

The problem with war is, everyone thinks they're justified.

And whose to say who's right and who's wrong?

Captain Chaos

steddyeddy wrote: »

Anyway is there a moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber ect and if so why?
.

Yes there is, you even said it yourself in your third post. A stealth bomber targets the "bad guys" while a suicide bomber kills who ever they want and 99% of the time civilians are the intended targets.

Stealth bombers are only used to knock out or bypass enemy air defence radars so they can hit high value highly protected targets. Once all defences are gone standard bombers take over that can carry more weapons than stealths can and are cheaper to use.

The Diabolical Monocle

steddyeddy wrote: »

The people who were raping China such as those in charge of unit 731 or emperor Hirohito got away scot free. In fact the scientists involved in dissecting people alive in unit 731 worked in Japan's health sector after the war!

While the civilian sat at home and reaped the benefits.

You cant punch someone in the face and say 'but my arm did it'.

steddyeddy

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Yes there is, you even said it yourself in your third post. A stealth bomber targets the "bad guys" while a suicide bomber kills who ever they want and 99% of the time civilians are the intended targets.

Stealth bombers are only used to knock out or bypass enemy air defence radars so they can hit high value highly protected targets. Once all defences are gone standard bombers take over that can carry more weapons than stealths can and are cheaper to use.

How do you think a bomb works? They're not precision instruments.

P_1

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Yes there is, you even said it yourself in your third post. A stealth bomber targets the "bad guys" while a suicide bomber kills who ever they want and 99% of the time civilians are the intended targets.

Stealth bombers are only used to knock out or bypass enemy air defence radars so they can hit high value highly protected targets. Once all defences are gone standard bombers take over that can carry more weapons than stealths can and are cheaper to use.

Actually weren't stealth bombers originally conceived as a way of dropping nukes without being detected like a missile would?

steddyeddy

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

While the civilian sat at home and reaped the benefits.

You cant punch someone in the face and say 'but my arm did it'.

Then by extension the civilians who supported an apartheid government in South Africa where viable targets?

Nino Brown

steddyeddy wrote: »

And whose to say who's right and who's wrong?

My point exactly, that's why we have wars, and why we always will. Right and wrong is decided by which side you're on

Setun

3rdDegree wrote: »

The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

Actually Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessarily the reasons the Japanese surrendered - Russia also declared war on them as Japan moved further into Asia. See here => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945)

DoesNotCompute

banquo wrote: »

Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.

But why nuke civilians? Why not nuke a military target?

steddyeddy

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

But why nuke civilians? Why not nuke a military target?

It would be extremely unlikely that a nuke would take out only military targets unless those targets were in Siberia or some equally remote places.

Captain Chaos

P_1 wrote: »

Actually weren't stealth bombers originally conceived as a way of dropping nukes without being detected like a missile would?

Nope. That concept came later once they figured out how to make a larger aircraft like a long range heavy bomber stealthy. The first stealths were small short range tactical bombers as proof of concept. It was only in the mid-late 80's they managed to make/develop stealth aircraft that had the performance to actually engage in air to air combat with another aircraft.

Holsten

Good quote and quite true.

War is war no matter how it's fought.

steddyeddy

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

Whether its a jet bomber or a grunt with his boots on the ground we all try to be stealthy.. My uniform is camo, my boots are soft & quiet, I've no metal buckets on any of my equipment even my weapon has a flash hider.. And all soldiers go to war for political reasons I guess.

Would it be true to say that soldiers don't always see things are necessarily good guys Vs bad guys?

The Diabolical Monocle

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then by extension the civilians who supported an apartheid government in South Africa where viable targets?

Maybe its okay to sit back and have atrocities done in your name.

Japanese culture at the time was, once again, that of being the chosen ones, the superior humans, and every war factory worker and administrator and supplier loyally paid out their share to their glorious empire expecting they'd get what was coming to them as part of the glorious empire.

Ben Shekelberg

Stealth bombers go in take out legit military targets. Suicide bombers blow themselves up in markets and train stations in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible. So yes, there is a difference.

steddyeddy

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Maybe its okay to sit back and have atrocities done in your name.

Japanese culture at the time was, once again, that of being the chosen ones, the superior humans, and every war factory worker and administrator and supplier loyally paid out their share to their empire expecting they'd get what was coming to them as part of the glorious empire.

Unfortunately that belief is not extinct

Holsten

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

Stealth bombers go in take out legit military targets.

No, what they believe to be legit military targets.

westcoast66

dotsman wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

None. Unless you have figured out the secret of eternal life?

Ben Shekelberg

Holsten wrote: »

No, what they believe to be legit military targets.

Like airfields, ammunition depots, communication centres.

Nino Brown

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

Like airfields, ammunition depots, communication centres.

That's what you consider to be a legitimate target. Terrorists consider us to be legitimate targets, it depends how you look at it.

The Diabolical Monocle

steddyeddy wrote: »

Unfortunately that belief is not extinct

Shure they should know by now t'is the Irish.