| Subject: unjust boooooom |
Author:
Sibo
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:53:59 01/01/02 Tue
In reply to:
Paul Musgrave
's message, ""Unjust" Bombing of Hiroshima" on 22:28:11 12/30/01 Sun
Date Posted: 14:13:35 12/31/01 Mon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool, I did an LD case on this. Was it just to bomb Hiroshima? "Knight" may have made a more effective point by defining "just"--is this just deontologically, or teleologically? The former would favor a negation of the "resolution", the latter would affirm.
Lets not forget, it wasn't just two options period. US coulda not bombed. US coulda bombed. US coulda shown Japan the power of the bomb. An option that was rejected by Truman was letting the Japanese experience a "test" bomb, by which they would frighten the Japanese into submission.
This option sounds like it woulda been a good choice, as it makes sense that even without suffering casualties, they see a giant mushroom cloud tower high enough to touch the heavens, or whatever.
Unfortunately, I can't find any evidence for this position, (i.e. I am too lazy to find it), so if any people out there reading this (i.e. some of Mike's friends)want to write a paper on the Unjust Bombing of Hiroshima, you'll have to research for yourself.
P.S. I know what you mean Mike, about how third people that leave the game unbalance the game. (risk) I had North and South America, Europe, and Northern Africa against my dad and sis. My dad quits, and my sis procedes to take his risk cards, and basically risk me to death. Not cool.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 