>From: Dwayne <dwayne@pobox.com>
>Not being a lawyer, shouldn't the US have acted according to what
>it felt was right? Your argument above makes sense, but I was told
>about two wrongs not making a right a long time ago. It seems to
>me that this is a lot of the problem, using these weapons lowered
>those who used them in the eyes of the world, whereas restraint,
>or acting according to principles the US espoused, would have been
>the better option. Unless of course there were other reasons for
>using it other than the publicly announced reasons.
The U.S. did act according to it's principals, it did do what it
thought was right.
The issue of the atomic bomb has always been a strange one. We
killed many more people in the firebombing and other raids, yet
people try to single out the A-Bomb as something categorically
different.
Explain to me the difference between killing 400,000 in the
firebombing raid on Tokyo vs the 50,000 killed by the bomb in
either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The estimates were a million U.S. casualties alone to end the war.
Those who used it felt it was the lesser of two evils.
>I have not read the Geneva convention but I'd have thought that
>one country signing it binds them to act accordingly, not that
>both parties have to be signatories for it to apply. Although, we
>are talking war here, so it may well be full of loopholes.
The Geneva convention is a contract between two or more parties
where they agree on the rules of the fight. If they both do not
sign and abide, there is no contract and almost anything goes.
Take the current war.
Ossama Bin Laden in his declaration of war said that he would make
no distinction between civilians and military personnel, he also
said it would be confined to men, but he violated that on Sept 11.
He also used men out of uniform, in a sneak attack, and directly
targeted civilians.
So he gets nothing, no rules apply, including quarter. If a member
of the Taliban or Al-Quaeda raises his hands to surrender it has no
meaning, they can be shot dead. This is an option of the individual
soldiers conscience.
>The "the Russians would have risked a nuclear war in the future if
>it wasn't demoed properly" argument makes a LOT of sense to me,
>much more so than the reason we are given (Japanese surrender).
Since this is your opinion no reply is required.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT