/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>781798

sure

Yes, those are just forms of weaponry. The moral component is entirely on application.

>>781798

No.

>>781798

No. Also america destroyed the two most christian cities in Japan, good work.

>>781826

It was either nuking them or invading them. The latter would have resulted in much more bloodshed seeing as how the Japanese were planning on using women and children as soldiers

>>781826

We dropped leaflets over the cities telling all civilians to evacuate, in English and in Japanese.

>>781798

Fighting is fighting. There’s no such thing as “fighting fair”.

>>781855

The genocide of the peoples of Canaan were, by your own definition, total war. They were completely justified.

>>781859

>genocide of canaan

God specifically and directly ordered that. Do you think God spoke to Truman and ordered him to nuke the Japanese?

>>781859

That was due to the context. Imagine genocideing an entire country today in the name of your just war and see what God would say about that.

Unless you have the divine word of God on your side then no that would be very wrong.

God is the author of life so he could have just made a disease kill them all, but instead he used his Israelites to do so.

>>781865

I’m just pointing out an inconsistency in your statement. Some total wars were justified by God’s command.

>>781873

Fewer people died during the entire March to the Sea than half a day of battle at Gettysburg or Antietam. So while Total War is absolutely destructive, it can also be carried out in a manner that reduces casualties. Keeping this in mind and considering nuclear weapons, Total War is more justifiable than a nuclear attack.

>>781880

There is a big difference between soldiers dying in battle and families dying of starvation that was intentionally set so that would would experience it. Ending a war faster does not justify this behavior.

As for use of nuclear weapons I feel like those are simply an extension of total war. Since it carries the same idea. However, you *can* use nuclear weapons in such a way that *avoids* civilian casualty. If this were the case, such an implication of the weapons would actually be *more* moral than total war since total war is specifically targeted to civilians.

>>781885

>total war is specifically targeted to civilians.

Well think about the way the Southern economy was structured at the time of the war, it was almost entirely agrarian and much of the non-foodstuff military supplies was made by cottage industries. They simply didn't have industry on the scale of the North (hence why smuggled arms were so valuable), so in order to target the military and its supplies it was necessary to target the civilians who provided materiel.

However, such a strategy in the late 20th century and now in our own would be absolutely immoral based on your reasoning for sure, and so given the way our economy is your point about tactical use of nuclear arms may hold water. But to apply that reasoning to past wars is incorrect in my opinion.

>>781835

>>781846

Why did it have to be Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Sounds fishy to me. https://richmondunlimited.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/ww-2-the-only-two-christian-cities-in-japan-bombed-with-atomic-bombs/

>>781842

No it wasn't. winnie the pooh the american empire.

No, it's one thing to meet on an open field and slowly march toward each other in a defensive formation alongside pikemen and another thing is destroying civilian buildings so you can profit from their reconstruction.

If you talk about WW2,it was 10000x unjustified.