steddyeddy wrote: » I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?
wp_rathead wrote: » but they are not okayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
steddyeddy wrote: » So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?
According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are deemed to be in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation responsibilities. It also states that the United States would only consider using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. Based on these criteria, the United States would consider using nuclear weapons against states that possess nuclear weapons—Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—as well as states that are in noncompliance with their nonproliferation objectives, namely, North Korea, Syria, and Iran.
One eyed Jack wrote: » What's that quote about killing one person is murder, killing a million is war, or something like that? Of course there's moral hypocrisy in everything, standard "do as I say, not as I do" is the default setting for most people.
Thinkers have long grappled with the relationships among peace, war and strength. Thomas Hobbes wrote his case for strong government, “Leviathan,” as the English Civil War raged around him in the 1640s. German sociologist Norbert Elias’s two-volume treatise, “The Civilizing Process,” published on the eve of World War II, argued that Europe had become a more peaceful place in the five centuries leading to his own day. The difference is that now we have the evidence to prove their case..... War may well be the worst way imaginable to create larger, more peaceful societies, but the depressing fact is that it is pretty much the only way . If only the Roman Empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls and Greeks, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans, if these and countless conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force. But this did not happen. People almost never give up their freedoms — including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish one another — unless forced to do so; and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.
Earthhorse wrote: » Some people argue that dropping the bomb on Japan brought about their surrender instead of prolonging the war which would have cost more lives. Not sure if there's a consensus on it but given that ever since no nuclear bombs have been dropped I think it's fair to say no one regards nuclear war as ethically sound.
endacl wrote: » Rape is bad, but it's ok to wish multiple violent rape-with-implements on convicted rapists? ISIS beheadings are abhorrent, but it's OK to wish the Middle East be bombed back to the Stone Age (which, culturally, wouldn't be far)? People are never consistent. Why would you expect them to be?!?
steddyeddy wrote: » Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?
Einhard wrote: » For me, the difference is intent. Killing innocents is always abominable. However, I think there's a pretty obvious distinction between someone dropping a bomb on a military target and killing civilians in the process, and detonating a bomb in a marketplace with the express intent of killing civilians.
A year on from a U.S. drone strike in Yemen that hit a wedding convoy, killing 12, the United States government have refused to formally recognise the attack, or publicly acknowledge that unarmed civilians died as a result of the strike.
The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur. Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.
It is one of the worst incidents of the entire drones campaign, yet one of the least reported. A CIA strike on a madrassa or religious school in 2006 killed up to 69 children, among 80 civilians.
darkpagandeath wrote: » On a side note Nukes are not ok, They had to be used to show how terrible a prospect it was to use them. Same with Chemical weapons. Someone may be able to correct me but biological have never been used ?
