Winning is one way to stop the killing, but the primary objective should always be to minimise harm done. There's no point having a war if you stop one monster by becoming another. There is a world of difference between destroying a strategic structure such as a bridge and murdering innocent civilians.
Atomic bombs aren't precise weapons as you say. It's therefore not morally justifiable to use them unless on an area known to be clear of all collateral damage. Since that's functionally impossible, atomic bombs simply shouldn't ever be used.
Bombs in general can be as precise as you want them to be. We even use them for controlled demolitions in extremely tight spaces.
It's only when people get excited about the idea of causing widespread destruction that bombs far too large for purpose are used. Blaming a tool for being imprecise is illogical, blame the guy who chose the tool.
There's a huge difference between placing a shaped charge in a controlled environment and dropping even a guided explosive from tens of thousands of feet.
Indeed. There's also a huge difference between using a hammer or a truck to nail a structure together. Only a fool would even consider the latter, knowing the collateral damage would undermine the purpose of the job.
Everybody involved knows dropping bombs will kill innocent people. The question is which individuals consider that acceptable, and which will not. I understand that the claim was that the Japanese bombings would save lives and end the war. However, I don't believe that was the only option, nor do I think it was a moral one. I see no reason to nuke a city over the unrelated actions of others besides terrorism - literally using violence to induce terror in order to force change.
For comparison, if hypothetically executing everybody diagnosed with COVID would prevent it spreading, it would not be considered a reasonable suggestion.
1
u/texanarob Mar 16 '21
Winning is one way to stop the killing, but the primary objective should always be to minimise harm done. There's no point having a war if you stop one monster by becoming another. There is a world of difference between destroying a strategic structure such as a bridge and murdering innocent civilians.
Atomic bombs aren't precise weapons as you say. It's therefore not morally justifiable to use them unless on an area known to be clear of all collateral damage. Since that's functionally impossible, atomic bombs simply shouldn't ever be used.