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

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 02:23AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Look up the GBU-39 and 40 SDB I and II, next to no colleteral damage. Can hit moving targets like a car and has just enough explosive charge to destroy it and little else. Not as unrealistic as you may think.

But like a suicide bomber you're killing people for political gain. I don't support the politics of the Afghanistan war so it's just killing people for political gain of one faction. Even if they use a surgical strike some divisions of an army use less targeted strikes.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 02:26AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

But like a suicide bomber you're killing people for political gain.

What has that got to do with the morality of it? A mugger mugs for financial gain and a worker works for financial gain, but they aren't morally equivalent.

enfant terrible · 04-01-2014 03:28AM

I'd prefer to be a stealth bomber

tdv123 · 04-01-2014 03:41AM

Phoebas wrote: »

How is forcing someone to carry out a suicide bombing under threat of their family's life worse than, say, using a remote detonator?
Are you f'ing serious?

Those people who had to carry out the proxy bombs were informers who were going to be killed anyway.

Yer IRA man explains it in this video at 4:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJY18E1ebLE

So you can bet the proxy bomber did some bad stuff himself because we know the ra never targeted innocent people.

BraziliaNZ · 04-01-2014 04:32AM

Wake up little Suzie

he's dead

czx · 04-01-2014 05:48AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

But like a suicide bomber you're killing people for political gain. I don't support the politics of the Afghanistan war so it's just killing people for political gain of one faction. Even if they use a surgical strike some divisions of an army use less targeted strikes.

Suicide bombing specifically targets civilians

czx · 04-01-2014 06:04AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd be fairly confident that their are prospective suicide bombers out there who would refuse to target civilians but would target military targets - and there are bomber pilots who would refuse to drop bombs on civilian targets.

Neither of these make sense

04-01-2014 06:22AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

1: It stopped the war, and saved japan from a land invasion that would have destroyed the country ten times over.

2: Contruction of the Burma Railway (and how they treated POWs in general).

3: Unit 731

stoneill · 04-01-2014 07:37AM

The point that Tony Benn was making was that there is no moral justification for war, whether it is waged by governments or by terrorists groups.

All war is about power and money. That's all they have ever been about, that all they will ever be about.
Every single conflict in history from the smallest to the largest is about power and money, not freedom, not slavery, not religion, not fascism or anti-fascism, not democracy, not antisemitism, just power and money.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 04-01-2014 08:22AM

From 'The Battle Of Algiers'-

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

Excellent film.

professore · 04-01-2014 10:44AM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

The war was all but over, lets be honest.

It certainly wasn't - and one atomic bomb was justified on a less populated area to show the potential, not wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki though. Should have been surrender Hirihito or wherever you are is next.

That's the ultimate deterrent - the guy giving the orders also has his life on the line.

stoneill · 04-01-2014 11:07AM

professore wrote: »

It certainly wasn't - and one atomic bomb was justified on a less populated area to show the potential, not wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki though. Should have been surrender Hirihito or wherever you are is next.

That's the ultimate deterrent - the guy giving the orders also has his life on the line.

Indeed.
The first bomb tested as part of the Manhattan project was an implosion device named Fat Man - this type of bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

The second bomb dropped was an untested uranium gun type, code named Little Boy.

Doubtless they both did shorten the war and save many US soldiers lives, but at what cost?

The decision to drop the second bomb was due to Japan not being ready to surrender, and the reason is because of the total effectiveness of the Hiroshima bomb. It completely destroyed the communications infrastructure, rail, road, telephone and telegraph communications simply did not exist, so news and official reports of the devastating explosion did not reach the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters. They were unaware of this new weapon!

Richard Rhodes book gives great technical and moral insight to the whole Manhattan project and decision making process during that time.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 11:39AM

tdv123 wrote: »

Those people who had to carry out the proxy bombs were informers who were going to be killed anyway.

Well, that's just plain untrue. One proxy bomber was chosen because he worked as a cook for the BA. Another was chosen because he served police officers petrol at his filling station. On one occasion, London taxi drivers was chosen.

Their families - women and children (elderly parents in one case) - who would have been murdered if they didn't carry out the suicide bombings were not 'informers', were they?

UCDVet · 04-01-2014 12:06PM

Of course there is a moral difference. People debate the morality of suicide all the time. Many religions and even legal systems are actively against suicide.

A stealth bomber drops bombs on OTHER people.
A suicide bomber kills himself and OTHER people.

Clearly, these are morally different. Murder verse Murder + Suicide.

The only way you can say these are morally equivalent is by saying suicide is morally indifferent. Which I believe, but almost nobody else does.

Duck Soup · 04-01-2014 12:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

1: It stopped the war, and saved japan from a land invasion that would have destroyed the country ten times over.

2: Contruction of the Burma Railway (and how they treated POWs in general).

3: Unit 731

All of the people who ran Unit 731 were given immunity from prosecution by the US, so the Americans could have the cooperation of those military and medical people in interpreting the results of the experiments carried out at Unit 731 in biological and chemical warfare.

Shirō Ishii, the lieutenant general of Unit 731, travelled after the war to the US to advise on bioweapons. He died in Tokyo aged 67, in 1959, never having served a day for his crimes and worked all his post-war life as a doctor in Japan.

Masaji Kitano was the second in command of Unit 731, a medical doctor, microbiologist and the lieutenant general of the Imperial Japanese Army. He too completely escaped prosecution, thanks to the Americans, and after the war he worked for Green Cross, a Japanese pharmaceutical company. He died in Tokyo in 1986 aged 91.

No one from Unit 731 was ever prosecuted by the Allies, because America wanted access and explanation of the data that came from Unit 731.

It's a strangely selective thing, morality.

old hippy · 04-01-2014 04:37PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

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

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

It's very easy for us to sit here on our computers and say 'the Allies should have done this, the Japs were going to surrender, why didn't the thick American's know this!?'

Enough of the racial slurs, if you please.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 04:44PM

Phoebas wrote: »

What has that got to do with the morality of it? A mugger mugs for financial gain and a worker works for financial gain, but they aren't morally equivalent.

The whole premise of Tony's speech is that there is no difference between a war staged by a government and a war staged by terrorists. They're just names and propaganda.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 04:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The whole premise of Tony's speech is that there is no difference between a war staged by a government and a war staged by terrorists. They're just names and propaganda.

Does he think that all wars are morally equivalent? I doubt it.

nacho libre · 04-01-2014 05:03PM

stoneill wrote: »

Indeed.
T
Richard Rhodes book gives great technical and moral insight to the whole Manhattan project and decision making process during that time.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, is this the book you're referring to?

Nino Brown · 04-01-2014 05:06PM

old hippy wrote: »

Enough of the racial slurs, if you please.

That's racist? Is it racist to call Irishmen, Irish?

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 05:11PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

That's racist? Is it racist to call Irishmen, Irish?

'Japanese' is the correct term. 'Jap' is widely considered to be a slur.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 05:16PM

Phoebas wrote: »

'Japanese' is the correct term. 'Jap' is widely considered to be a slur.

is brit or yank a racist slur ? , i don't like the term jap myself , but racist ? no
derogatory ? yes

bit of a difference - you said it was racial AND a slur - what one are you saying it is ?

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 05:20PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

is brit or yank a racist slur ? , i don't like the term jap myself , but racist ? no
derogatory ? yes

bit of a difference - you said it was racial AND a slur - what one are you saying it is ?

I said no such thing. You are confused.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 05:21PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I said no such thing. You are confused.

sincere apology - you are correct , it was another poster , i shall behead myself immediately

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 05:25PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

sincere apology - you are correct , it was another poster , i shall behead myself immediately

I demand hari kari

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 05:29PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I demand hari kari

bugger

returnNull · 04-01-2014 05:29PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I demand hari kari

with a rusty butterknife

Killer Wench · 04-01-2014 05:29PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

is brit or yank a racist slur ? , i don't like the term jap myself , but racist ? no
derogatory ? yes

bit of a difference - you said it was racial AND a slur - what one are you saying it is ?

Brit or Yank is usually assigned to people of a certain nationality, race is irrelevant. People usually conflate ethnicity, race, and nationality when it comes to being Japanese. Here in the States (as it relates to another thread), it is a considered an offensive term due to its usage from World War II.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 05:40PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Brit or Yank is usually assigned to people of a certain nationality, race is irrelevant. People usually conflate ethnicity, race, and nationality when it comes to being Japanese. Here in the States (as it relates to another thread), it is a considered an offensive term due to its usage from World War II.

so is jap , the certain nationality being Japanese

Killer Wench · 04-01-2014 05:48PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

so is jap , the certain nationality being Japanese

Missed this, did ya?

People usually conflate ethnicity, race, and nationality...

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

Comments