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 )