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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (61540)	4/24/2008 2:58:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542147

I don't think we can reasonably assume that an invasion would have killed more innocent civilians. IMO Killed more people is a near lock. Killed more Americans is a lock. Killed more civilians than the nuclear bombs did is a very reasonable assumption. Killed more civilians than all the nuclear and firebombing combined is quite possible. ----- Lets try a different tact, to separate consequentialism from the acts being morally unacceptable under any circumstances. If it was an iron clad lock that they reduced the number of civilian deaths, and that they reduced total deaths to half or less, would you still find the bombings unacceptable? (BTW, I think the reduced civilian deaths part is true about the atomic bombs, and at least the total deaths part is true about those bombings combined with the fire bombing of Tokyo, but I don't think it was true about the firebombing of Dresden (although reduced allied deaths would be true)).