Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (334318)	4/19/2007 7:19:04 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571939

So you've contacted his ghost and it told you? Even if you where alive at the time, and personally met Truman it would be hard to be certain of the exact reasons, and the relative importance of each of those reasons. In any case the fact that its almost certain that the bombs killed less Japanese then an invasion would have is far more important IMO then how much weight Truman gave that fact. The only consequentialist/utilitarian moral argument against dropping the bombs is the theory that neither an invasion, nor the nuclear bomb dropping, nor months more of conventional and incendiary bombings, combined with a tightening blockade, would have been necessary to end the war. Some people hold this theory to be true. If one does, then it makes sense to consider the bombing to be wrong. I disagree with the theory. Or you could argue that something about the nature of the act is more important than the consequences of the act in the context of the consequences of not taking the action. I'd have to hear the specific argument before I could respond to it.