Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

    • arthur@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t believe that is what you meant, but @dewritoninja has a point: on your definition, where is the acceptable limit for the violence-to-supress-violence?

      PS: “An eye for an eye” (law of exact retaliation) was written to suppress escalation of violence. And usually people consider even that excessive.

      • MimicJar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point is that it’s an absurd argument.

        Let’s talk real world, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think a reasonable argument can be made that those bombings made sense? If not, what about in 1945?

        I’m not asking you to agree, just to understand the argument. It’s a discussion worth having, even if you disagree with the answer.

        • arthur@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think it made sense, even at that time. Those cities were mainly built with wood, and US used a lot of fire against Japan.

          The use of nuclear power against Japan was more like a test and a message, it was not needed to win the war. (At least this is what I remember from this documentary )