[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It all depends on context. In international relations morality should not apply - at least it should not apply wherever it conflicts with objectives. Domestically is a different question and more difficult to answer. The domestic politik is warfare too but it is bracketed warfare in the sense that it is confined within limits. When these limits are exceeded and actual violence breaks out then morality must leave the room - again, at least where it conflicts with the objective/s.[/quote]
Morality should always apply. Give an example when it conflicts with objectives.[/quote]
Strategic objectives must take precedence over morality otherwise the objective becomes morality itself which is insane. The objective of d-day was to secure a beachhead in Normandy and kill some Germans. Any morality comes second and has to conform to those objectives.[/quote]
That really depends on who is making the decisions. In cases like say Normandy there are clear objectives and consequences of action which were factored in before the final decision to invade was even made.
In situations where there are extreme moral consequences we judge more carefully whether the blowback of such actions is worth the action. Other times history judges actions harshly.
All you have to do is imagine in say a war of necessity where say an aggressor nation who is in the wrong has their troops maltreated by a defender nation. Another thing to consider is the point of rules of war, if you think it through you see the situations you are talking about have more caveats than you insinuate. Seems kinda Utilitarian to me, where you are saying the ends justifies the means. But really the conduct in how we go about achieving ends factor into the ends themselves as well. It’s more complicated is all I’m trying to say. [/quote]
Yes that’s true. But that’s operating under the framework I outlined. You’re arguing on grounds of the strategic objective > ie, blowback. Will this scenario lead to blowback > blowback harms strategic objectives. You’re not appealing to morality but the more abstract, unquantifiable and unforeseen consequences of actions that may harm overall strategic objectives.[/quote]
Nope, there are moral judgements that precede actions, and there almost always are except in the most extreme examples.
The choice to say drop nuclear weapons in Japan was as much a moral decision as it was a military decision. Moral consequences were weighed before the decision was ultimately made to drop the bombs, so morality still preceded that action. [/quote]
Nope. It was simply because the moral and strategic objectives were compatible and the same in that case - end the Pacific War as quickly as possible with the least loss of lives.[/quote]
The morality is built into your statement, you just didn’t elaborate on it.
The cost of civilian lives in Japan was actually factored into the decision to bomb. The rest of it is up for debate… If you know the history of it you know that one argument is that the Japanese were willing to surrender, as once the Russians entered it would be impossible to win.
The other story is that the Japanese civilians were being prepped to fight troops with whatever means necessary, with farming tools if need be. That the cost and logistics of such an invasion along with the total amount of lives lost, both American and Japanese would be much less if we used the atomic weapons.
So, it really depends on which history you buy into. At the point when we decided to drop the bombs the U.S. had already decimated Japans military and logistics, to the point they had no fuel or real means to defend themselves. I don’t know what it would have been like for the U.S. to try and occupy mainland Japan like we did Okinawa. Would have cost a fortune in lives and money on both sides and probably bankrupted us.