"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is
justifiable
in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved
overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child.
A
basic
morality question.

A false morality question (sorry this is piggybacked Dan, I know this isn't
from you). Age should not be a qualifier for moral actions . If life is
sacred, it is sacred for all, the soldier who puts life on the line is equal
to the child.



I offered that option to an individual who was only concerned with child
casualties.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Is there any reason why death is morally approached due to age? Death is
death. If life is sacred for a young human so it must be for an adult. It
does not matter how many children would have died. What matters is how many
people would have died. The nuclear weapons may have killed many, but how
many people - not just children - did not die because the war was brough to
a close? The total stopping of the Japanesse war machine saved people
throughout the Pacfic region.
A second but far more nebulous idea is, did the use of the two weapons
pursuade later powers to aviod further use of nuclear capeabilty? Did the
use in 1945 prevent an exchange over Cuba? Conjecture but worth considering.

Tom C