On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:11 -0600, "old hoodoo"
wrote:

JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
morality question.

To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
other children is justified, but that is just me.


Second-guessing fifty eight years after a war that was remarkable for
its scope, destruction and brutality is a futile exercise.

But, let me point out one observation that I regularly make to my
political science classes. When someone brings up "save the children"
as a rationale for any decision it usually means that logic and reason
will be abandoned in favor of emotionalism.

It is virtually impossible to guarantee that no child will be killed
in any military operation. To set the moral bar at that level will
guarantee defeat and will most assuredly result in much higher
casualties than to recognize the violence of war and then conduct it
as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Maybe the question you should ask yourself while posturing about
saving the children is whether you would be willing to sacrifice
yourself, your spouse, your siblings, your parents and your adult
children in defense of your country while making your strategic
decisions based on protection of the enemy's children.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8