Edwin O. Reischauer, a Japan expert for the U.S. Army Intelligence Service, was incorrectly said to have prevented the bombing of Kyoto.[73] In his autobiography, Reischauer specifically refuted this claim:
... the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier.[74][75]
On May 30, Stimson asked Groves to remove Kyoto from the target list due to its historical, religious and cultural significance, but Groves pointed to its military and industrial significance.[76] Stimson then approached President Harry S. Truman about the matter. Truman agreed with Stimson, and Kyoto was temporarily removed from the target list.[77] Groves attempted to restore Kyoto to the target list in July, but Stimson remained adamant.[78][79] On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto.[79]
It's not that I am not open to the explanations. I simply do not accept the explanations, probably because my "imperfect morality" is far superior to the perfect morality that you believe comes with your religion.
I am honest with myself. But I do not think that applies to most Christians. I'll give you an example. Let's say that there was no OT, but someone today discovers some ancient texts that are identical in every way to what is in the OT and further analysis shows those texts belong to some ancient now defunct religion. You can be sure without any doubt that Christians would condemn those texts and say that the people that held that religion followed the wrong God as his actions are more akin to that of Satan. There would be parallels drawn to the atrocities of ISIS. They would highlight how different the God of those texts is to the God that Christians worship. There wouldn't be one Christian, William Lane Craig included, who would try to defend the God of those texts and that God would simply be condemned as a false God and outright evil. If anyone were to suggest that the God of those texts was in fact Jesus, they would be accused of blasphemy and excommunicated.
That is why Christians aren't being honest with themselves. They are hypocritical for not disassociating themselves from the God of the OT. That is why they do not want to talk about the OT. It forces them to confront their own dishonesty.
So you think killing soldiers is ok,
I don't think killing anyone is ok but you have to have some rules.
.
Here is one report on the target rationale. Kyoto was proposed but rejected because one of the U.S. generals had been there on his honeymoon. FFS if these idiots used that sort of reasoning you have to wonder about their ability to make any sort of rational decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
You're really complicating this. The NT is based on the OT. If you read it, you will constantly see cross referencing back to the OT. In fact Paul actually does some commentating on some of the harsh bits in there. And then talks about Christ's love etc, so no problem reconciling both testaments. I think the problem here is you know very little about the Bible itself.
I'm unclear on what aspect of those stories in particular bother you? Is it:
God destroying some races e.g. Sodom/Gomorah/Amalek?
Or is it because He also took away the innocent (babies/children) as well?
Or you think this extermination act is incompatible with the morals laid out by Jesus in the NT? If so, maybe you could be a bit more specific about the conflict with Jesus's teachings.
Also, the OT isn't just about brutality. It's full of wonder and beauty, to those who have the patience to discover it.
I think the problem here is you know very little about the Bible itself.
By the way, I do wish to extend you my heartfelt gratitude for not placing me on ignore.
Another statistic of note.
The American bombing campaign that was operating for 5 months before it was stopped due to the nuclear weapons, killed nearly 5 times the amount of people killed by the nuclear weapons.
So if the war had dragged on for just 1 extra month, the losses due to the conventional bombing campaign added to the losses from both sides in battle would have out weighed the losses from the nukes.
Check out this short video explaining how devastating the American bombing campaign was even though it wasn’t “nuclear”
You're really complicating this. The NT is based on the OT. If you read it, you will constantly see cross referencing back to the OT.
I just did a bit of math, comparing the nuclear weapons damage to that done by the daily/nightly conventional bombing campaign which had been going for 5 months,
mate do you even know why Hiroshima was chosen as a target?
It was a military town, that was targeted because it had soldiers, war factories and large stock piles of equipment, 20,000 of those killed were soldiers, many of the “civilians” were working for the war effort in factories.
No allied force goes after civilians for the sake of it, the civilians were collateral damage, not the target.
Weren't one of the ultimate target was chosen because the other city targeted was too cloudy?
I mean, how serious were the military target when it's cloudy so you go for a city nearby.
The actual method of destruction is not the point. The point is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Obviously there are grey areas like munitions factories etc but there is evidence that some of the bombing was a "shock and awe" tactic that targeted civilians either for revenge or to break the will of the population.
Those tactics have legitimised targeting innocents and have been copied by militant terrorists who justify it by saying "the West started it in WW2".
As ye sow , so shall ye reap. Don't know if that is secular in origin or not, but it's true.
Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima where towns important to the war effort, no military commander is going to waste a new powerful weapon on civilians.
Another pro securalism article that somehow fails to recognise that it has logically undermined its own logical basis for belief!Hot off the press, from the February 2018 issue of Scientific American.....
Our Actions Don't Matter in a Cosmic Sense—But That Doesn't Mean They Don't Matter
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-mdash-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/
I agree, and my rule would be to limited the total number of deaths to the smallest number possible.
The trouble with that is that it is only your opinion of what is the "smallest number possible". What is your evidence that nuking two cities is the least possible damage ?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?