We can put forward conjecture and strong arguments for both points. I have my opinion on that and so do you all. Now what you are all disagreeing on is Point A. There are two real ethical components here:Ī) Was it wrong to use the two bombs to end the war. Lots of people don't seem to understand what a world war is, and just compare it to the little clashes of recent time, they aren't even comparable. Not much more to say about that.īut to even say they should have dropped it in nowhere, when even hitting a city didn't make them surrender is pure crazy. Who's looking back on it favourably, war is hell. Although even in the UK, plenty off teenagers lied about there age, and even more worked. So it depends, some wars you should and need to minimize casualties especially civilians, other wars there are no civilians and it's impossible to separate the war machine to the handful of people who have refused to fight or are to young to fight in that country. How about some of the African states that have child platoons? Are they off targets as they are as young as 6? In a small conflict where you don't need to carpet bomb cities then that's a different matter. World war when there's no separation of civilian cities to war machine, then cities are a valid target. Which war? Which country what consequences?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |