Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[UNITEDAIR]

Who cares if it's justifiable. All is fair in War. The winner is the only thing that matters.
Japan attacked the united states; we declared war thus we can/could do anything we wanted to break them.

[trickser]

You seem to care. What you wrote has the same function as the other arguments which attempted to justify the events within this debate.
Why defend/attack at all what people did 70 years ago?

[DTNC Vicious]

You seem to care. What you wrote has the same function as the other arguments which attempted to justify the events within this debate.
Why defend/attack at all what people did 70 years ago?

Because we have the ability to that's why, quite simple and frankly anyone who thinks using the bomb wasn't justified can *expletive* off.

[UNITEDAIR]

You seem to care. What you wrote has the same function as the other arguments which attempted to justify the events within this debate.
Why defend/attack at all what people did 70 years ago?

Are you suggesting that discussing/arguing about history is somehow irrelevant and/or pointless?

[trickser]

I suggest to not use semantic trash when making an argument.

Trash:

we: grammatically equivalent to (I + They). Neither of you has fought in WW2 or been involved with the production or dropping of the atomic bombs.

there is no reason to reason / justify: A contradiction in itself, if you make an argument you have a motivation/reason.

because we / I can:
because -> the reasoning, there was something in the past, a motivation;
can -> the possibilities of acting, something that could happen in the future.

Now I am all for plays with language but those plays have been repeated so often, they are only stereotypes. I fear people believe they actually make sense in thier literal meaning.

Edit:

Why defend/attack at all what people did 70 years ago?

Are you suggesting that discussing/arguing about history is somehow irrelevant and/or pointless?

Maybe somewhat, we will never be able to agree on the matter and probably become a bit angry at each other. But we dont need to be cowards therefor, we still learn something about each other which seems to be more valuable then to have a common interpretation of the past.

[Mr.Megadeath]

How about we just drop the subject because we are beating a dead horse at this point.

[DTNC Vicious]

Actuallyyyyy Sen someone in my family was involved directly in the Manhattan Project.

[UNITEDAIR]

No point in talking to trickster at all.

I want to hear more about DTNC family involved in the Manhattan project.

I highly recommend 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes which won the Pulitzer prize.
A brick of a book but highly worth it; the most comprehensive detailed look at the history and the physics.

[Mr.Megadeath]

I highly recommend 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes which won the Pulitzer prize.
A brick of a book but highly worth it; the most comprehensive detailed look at the history and the physics.

I saw that book in the history section of Barnes and Noble. I've been thinking about it but I might pick it up next time I go

[trickser]

No point in talking to trickster at all.

But why?

I critizied your argument for being idiotic at basic logic levels. And when your reply made it obvious you did not understand I made myself more clear. And I even answered to what came up from your misunderstanding, assuming you care about answers when you ask a question.

Heck, I was even building a bridge to your idiotic argument, assuming it might express the wish to end the debate about the rightfulness.

[UNITEDAIR]

Your dance with logic and semantics was belittling, supercilious, and irrelevant.
I was taking a ground on moral relativism and suggest the futility of justifying horrible actions in a state of war.
Mora is correct, this is a dead horse.

And do get that book Mora (and everyone reading this), it was very enlightening .

[trickser]

I was taking a ground on moral relativism

Great, I also dislike it.

However my solution is not defining a space where moral does not count.

and suggest the futility of justifying horrible actions in a state of war.

That's also relativizing, sometimes moral counts, sometimes it does not.

Yes war, war needs to be won by all means necessary, no sense in entering it in first place if you are not willing to do so.
But the killing of 100.000 people with a single weapon trigger will remain a question of moral till the end of our civilization.
Those who come up with the "expensiv invasion" argument, which is relativizing moral, are at least facing the dilemma.

If your argument accurately reflects what you are thinking then you won't see that dilemma. Furthermore by identifying yourself with the whole USA (we) and it's entirety of actions and decisions, you make it impossible at all to ask questions of moral without insulting you personaly.

Even thought you decided to deny the dilemma, it, or better, your way of keeping it out of your thoughts still caused semantic contradictions. So I pointed at those, enabling you to somewhat experience the dilemma without having to accept it existence beforehand.

[UNITEDAIR]

If your argument accurately reflects what you are thinking then you won't see that dilemma. Furthermore by identifying yourself with the whole USA (we) and it's entirety of actions and decisions, you make it impossible at all to ask questions of moral without insulting you personaly.

What an incredibly stupid assumption. As if I feel casually connected to the direct actions of the usa government 70 years ago? (I don't) Or feel personally insulted if you ask questions of the morals of said government? (I don't) As if it's impossible to not feel insulted? Deny the dilemma? The same way atheist deny a god? I gave you the benefit of the doubt about the context of 'we' but apparently you need to be spoon feed every trivial semantic quarrel. Hence why there is no use discussing any further. Reply what you will, I'm sure you will come up with a very clever and witty response.

[Mr.Megadeath]

I'm sure you will come up with a very clever and witty response.

ayy lmao

[trickser]

UA, I am talking about your post:

Who cares if it's justifiable. All is fair in War. The winner is the only thing that matters.
Japan attacked the united states; we declared war thus we can/could do anything we wanted to break them.

It makes no sense. You say there is no need to justify, but at the same time the whole post is nothing else but a justification.
However there would be no reason to justify if they declared war and thus they did anything they wanted. Just a couple of assholes right? So the we is important, isn't it?