The 2 bombs that shouldn’t be used
Yesterday was the 64th anniversary of the dropping of Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima. In 2 days time, it will be the 64th anniversary of the dropping of Atomic bomb in Nagasaki. The dropping of these 2 bomb is one of the main reason why World War 2 was brought to an end. But until now, people are still debating whether it is necessary to use such drastic measure.
I always felt that the 2 Atomic bombs are unnecessary. Japan is already at the brink of losing the war. They are the only remaining member in the Axis power. Germany and Italy have all surrendered to the Allied forces. Their military resources are spread across asia and are losing grounds. The Allied forces are closing in on Japan mainland. Russia has declared war on Japan. It is a matter of time that Japan will surrender. In fact, historian said that if the Allies mentioned that they will allow a constitutional monarchy after surrender in the Potsdam Proclamation, the chances of Japan surrendering before August will be much higher.
I know some might debate that the Japanese killed more civilians in China and South East Asia. But does it give us the rights to be a devil to defeat another devil?
Others might say that an invasion on Japan mainland will result in more casualties. But at least these are mostly military casualties and not civilians. If war must be fought, it should be among military forces. Who gives us the rights to kill innocent civilians?
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
–Voltaire
Related posts:
5 Comments »
Leave a comment!
In the words of Robert McNamara, “In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.”
Who knows what will happen if those two bombs hadn’t be dropped? Will a mainland invasion of Japan result in less civilian casualties? Lots of what ifs….
Fact is, we’ll never know.
.-= Kenny´s last blog ..3333km In My Honda Civic FD2 Type-R [a 20-point summary] =-.
I guess we can debate until the cows come home, but I don’t think we’ll ever have a conclusion.
Nevertheless, all force should not be used unless after the greatest of consideration and the person that orders such, need to live with the consequences. Good or Ill.
.-= Vandalin´s last blog ..Of Channeling and Growing =-.
DK, the problem with devils is one of both degree and definition, we use tame wolves to guard sheep, we call them dogs. Similarly we use tame criminals to guard people, we call them policemen. It is said that the line between a policeman and a criminal is very thin, they think and behave in similar ways, and it is easy to cross that thin line.
Philosophically, a criminal cannot exist in a society without laws, it is by creating laws that we define the criminal.
There is no universal definition of where the line is drawn between a criminal and a non criminal.
A lovely definition that I once heard is that a policeman is a criminal who prefers to work for an organisation rather than go freelance.
Hopefully nuclear weapons will never be used again.
We can only pray and hope that there will be no future use of the atomic bomb.
The question lies in the IF. If General Percival fought another few more days, the Japanese forces might not have occupied Singapore because the supply for the Japanese forces were running thin.
“Victory was no longer the question. The opposite choice, death, would have meant the useless slaughter of civilians. And so General Percival made the hard, the humiliating choice.” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884444,00.html
.-= Aaron Koh´s last blog ..Is corporate blogging passé? =-.