This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is the piece of the puzzle that I think you are missing. The bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and dozens of other strategic air raid targets are totally unjustifiable by modern standards. They fail the tests of both proportionality and distinction. Were we to be using the standards of the allies in WWII (which were still higher than the standards of the Axis) then Israel turning the Gaza strip to rubble with carpet bombing or nukes would be, if not justifiable, at least comfortably within the window of normality.
Dresden, perhaps. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki it depends on if you take into account that they won the damned war. Critics like to not count that part. If you balance Hiroshima and Nagasaki against continued conventional warfare to a conclusion, they look a lot more proportional.
Under certain very soecific conditions: Japan must give Northern Territories, Korea, South Seas Mandate, Formosa, but gets to keep Hokkaido. His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor Syowa will lose power, but will not be tried, imprisoned, let alone murdered. Japanese people will not be enslaved.
Change any of these arbitrary conditions, and surrender comes at a different time. Perhaps if guarantees to the Emperor were less doubtful, only Hiroshima would be annihilated. If Potsdam declaration mentioned the Emperor by name as a war criminal, perhaps a couple of more cities would be irradiated.
These are largely quibbles, especially when applied to Hiroshima. The point is that weighing the civilian lives lost at Hiroshima against the immediate military advantage of destroying Hiroshima's military infrastructure rather than against the actual, plausible, objective of ending the war without a full-scale invasion is unreasonable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't count myself as a critic of the atomic bombings. It was a war crime in a war that was war crimes from beginning to end. Was it justifiable (in the moral sense) on the basis that not dropping the bombs would have resulted in ultimately a far worse outcome for all involved? Personally, I think so. But under the modern Law of Armed Conflict, such a bombing would not even be close to passing muster.
Sure, in hindsight it probably won the war, but all military acts are designed to win the war in some sense. That does not give all actors carte blanche to do anything they want on the basis that it may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ostensibly, the military infrastructure of Hiroshima was the true target of the bombing. the ~100k collateral civilian deaths caused by the bomb would certainly not be considered proportional to the military value of destroying those enemy assets.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I think you are correct. But on the other hand, modern standards for warfare are much higher due to precision weapons. As you suggest, from what I understand Allied tactics in the Second World War were not unusual when contrasted with the Axis tactics.
Mind you, this isn't necessarily a moral justification for the actions - I just think it's important to understand that our standards are and should be higher because we can be more discriminating.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link