But that's not what the treaties say.

From a utilitarian point of view, you could say the sympathiser is worth less on the basis that they hold more negative utility, and from a deontological point of view, you could say that the sympathiser is less deserving. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes. Another route is to say that the strong sympathizer is a quasi-combatant, and thus presents at least less collateral damage than a non-sympathizer would. Hamas has been known to boast about their "desire for death" (in relation to their cause), and a sympathizer of that caliber would rather alter the landscape.

This article says: — Hanover

I do not consider the Western press and media as reliable.

The question is about whether the American attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was moral. — frank

Frank, I'm just not sure how much can be accomplished by a discussion of the morality of war in general, particular battles, specific weapons, and various policies. You've heard of "the fog of war" -- how facts and rumors mingle, how chaos prevents a clear view of what is happening, how propaganda becomes indistinguishable from reliable reports, and so on.

"The Japanese half of the Axis was better than the German half" someone may have said earlier. Well, maybe or maybe not, Japan's army still occupied vast stretches of territory at the end of the war. We were on their doorstep, but It wasn't as if they had been driven back to the home islands. Truman was a murderer, banno says. Atrocious things were done to innocent people on all sides under the leadership of all sorts of ranking politicians and generals.

No doubt it is an easier task to decide who and what were moral almost 80 years ago. I don't believe 'moral' and 'immoral' were so clear in the middle of the war.

Christ, we have barely begun a new war and there is already a wide divergence about the morality of Hamas's and Israel's actions. The fog of war is gathering amidst a great deal of pontificating and Monday morning quarterbacking. Hiram Johnson, a Republican Senator from California, said that truth is the first casualty of war; he was talking about WWI. Truth is still shot down as soon as it enters the crosshairs.

Do I know what the truth is here, what is moral and what is not? No more than anyone else, which is why I am doubtful about what we can accomplish here. That doesn't mean I don't have preferences; I'd rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I prefer that people not commit murder, wholesale slaughter, wanton destruction, and bring about general ruination. But... sooner or later, people do those things and think themselves quite moral.

And you think *that* is "Japanese culture"?? — baker

It's the part of Japanese my daughter likes. Just to make the case that Japanese culture, as any culture, isn't just the old, the conservative part of culture. That cultures do evolve and do take influences from other cultures too.

The idea of "national" culture, which depicts something else as "unamerican", "ungerman" or "unjapanese" is typical for people holding very distinct and narrow views on culture in general.

Exactly. But what does it help if the body lives, if the soul, the spirit is crushed? — baker

Oh there's a natural cure for that.

If people would live to be on average 200 years, I am totally sure that "we" would be far more conservative, far more religious with a far lot memories of the past. Perhaps just now the last soldiers that fought the Napoleonic Wars would have died, and people who fought the WW1 and WW2 likely would be the politicians ruling over us.

Hence renewal happens when generations die and new ones replace them. You certainly remember what happened to you and you remember what your parents and grandparents have told you. But few have much interaction with their great grandparents, hence their time is really just in the history books. Assuming that history isn't kept up as part of your identity.

Ask yourself, what is so precious, so valuable in your culture for you from the 19th Century and earlier, that without it you will feel your spirit is crushed? Is it unbearable for you when things have changed from that time?

The nostalgia that writers like Mishima crave for are viewed with rose tainted glasses: It's one thing to preserve good values and customs from the past and another thing to attempt a revolution to go back to the good old days.

Frank, I'm just not sure how much can be accomplished by a discussion of the morality of war in general, particular battles, specific weapons, and various policies. You've heard of "the fog of war" -- how facts and rumors mingle, how chaos prevents a clear view of what is happening, how propaganda becomes indistinguishable from reliable reports, and so on. — BC

I agree. I think this question is more about the journey to your answer than the answer itself.

No doubt it is an easier task to decide who and what were moral almost 80 years ago. I don't believe 'moral' and 'immoral' were so clear in the middle of the war. — BC

That's exactly what I concluded. Judgment works better when it's backward facing. Kierkegaard pointed out that what we know comes from looking backward, but we have to live facing forward. Basically, you do your best with what you've got and make assessments after the fact.

But... sooner or later, people do those things and think themselves quite moral. — BC

Again, that was my conclusion. People always think what they're doing is right. I may know everyone condemns x, but if I'm doing it, it's because I've worked out somehow that it's right this time.

Frank, I'm just not sure how much can be accomplished by a discussion of the morality of war in general — BC

I imagine the aim of such discussions is to get peace of mind through understanding.

Do I know what the truth is here, what is moral and what is not? No more than anyone else, which is why I am doubtful about what we can accomplish here.
/.../
I prefer that people not commit murder, wholesale slaughter, wanton destruction, and bring about general ruination.

But... sooner or later, people do those things and think themselves quite moral.

All the more reason to contemplate issues of morality.

Every philosopher worth his salt has to develop a system of morality that makes sense of life as it is actually lived (including the wars) and that gives him peace of mind. The aim of philosophy is wisdom, not confusion.

Ask yourself, what is so precious, so valuable in your culture for you from the 19th Century and earlier, that without it you will feel your spirit is crushed? — ssu

The distinction between the high and the low.

The distinction between the classy and the plebeian.
The distinction between art proper and kitch.
The distinction between the honorable and the dishonorable.

Traditional cultures typical have this kind of distinction, whereas modern consumerist culture doesn't.

Is it unbearable for you when things have changed from that time?

Unbearable ... I feel like a dinosaur.

I wish I see some Samurai if I go to Japan one day, as well as I watched them in Kurosawa's films. — javi2541997

(Not from a Kurosawa film)

Katsumoto : The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren : Necessary? What could be more necessary?

Katsumoto : The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren : Necessary? What could be more necessary? — baker

Excellent! What film does this quote come from?

Unbearable ... I feel like a dinosaur. — baker

Lol. You aren't alone with that feeling.

It was a deliberate weapons test. They even avoided bombing the city earlier in the war so they could better measure the outcome. The bombs purpose was to demonstrate military supremacy and complete the most expensive weapons program in history with real data. Dropping nuclear bombs is not a part of negotiating a surrender. The question of morality is simple objectively; it's obviously immoral to target civilians and dropping nuclear weapons on cities targets civilians. At the time the US and Japanese had grown quite comfortable with killing each other so I doubt the sanctity of human life was the issue at hand. There's a big difference in thinking you have a super weapon and everyone one knowing you have a super weapon. The power gained from the confirmation and demonstration was the purpose. The war was the plausible context that facilitated it.

Or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Samurai