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 )