|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 25, 2020 9:31:27 GMT
In 1948, noted pacifist Bertrand Russell shocked everyone by advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR (there is some debate on whether this is exactly what he said, but for the sake of argument let's say it was). His reasoning was that with the way things were going, nuclear war between the West and the Soviet Union seemed inevitable. Therefore to prevent a much greater loss of life, the US should nuke the USSR before it developed nuclear weapons of its own.
Of course it didn't turn out that way. The Soviet Union did develop extensive nuclear weaponry and the Cold War did intensify but it never led to nuclear war. So if Russell's advice had been heeded, nuclear armageddon would have been unleashed on a defenceless country for no good reason. But the scary thing is we can only know that in retrospect - if USSR had been nuked, perhaps people would have thought Russell was correct and all-out nuclear war had been prevented. The pre-emptive nuclear strike would have been hailed as the ends justifying the means.
Makes me ponder other examples of where the ends have been used to justify the means but where we can't know what ends would have been achieved if different means had been applied. Also what about in the here and now? Can the means be justified when the ends are uncertain?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 26, 2020 0:33:21 GMT
Interesting.
Did the ends justify the means when the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Some analysts believe Japan was about to surrender anyways.
Did the ends justify the means when the colonies revolted against England? Canada never revolted, lived peacefully and was eventually granted their independence because UK just got tired of managing them.
Did the ends justify the means when Lincoln refused to just allow the southern states so secede and launched a terrible war?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 7:24:28 GMT
Interesting.Did the ends justify the means when the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Some analysts believe Japan was about to surrender anyways.
I actually think in that case the ends were more about a display of power to the Soviets. The Japanese were willing to surrender as long as the US agreed not to harm the emperor. Which the US agreed to in the end anyhow. Sure, there was some speculation that the generals would rebel and try to continue the war but surely you deal with that eventuality if/when it happens and deal with it proportionally - you don't just nuke two cities just in case. So I would say in that case the ends absolutely did not justify the means. Well there was a 90 year gap. Plus there's no guarantee Canada would have been granted independence if the American Revolution hadn't happened. I would say yes definitely because it ended slavery in America. I'm not enough of an expert on the civil war though to assess how much that was actually Lincoln's primary desired end though. And for all we know, there may have been a more peaceful route to emancipation in some alternate universe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Aug 26, 2020 7:38:29 GMT
You can’t save your soul while selling it to the Devil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Aug 26, 2020 7:51:43 GMT
Interesting.
Did the ends justify the means when the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Some analysts believe Japan was about to surrender anyways.
Did the ends justify the means when the colonies revolted against England? Canada never revolted, lived peacefully and was eventually granted their independence because UK just got tired of managing them.
Did the ends justify the means when Lincoln refused to just allow the southern states so secede and launched a terrible war?
We were at war with Japan. And aside from ending the war the Japanese fomented on the US in 1941, it showed Russia we would use atomics if they invaded Japan. They were on the brink of doing so. I don’t agree that the Japanese were in the process of surrendering, because they didn’t after the first bomb drop. Remember they were suicide bombing their own aircraft into American warships at that time. It took two days until the second one dropped that they surrendered. What no one knew at the time was those were the only two nukes we had. I wish the bombings never happened. I dare say, Truman did not realize the destructive power of them and it was upon his orders alone were they deployed, but there’s nothing to change history now. The USA did rebuild and support Japan once they surrendered to minimize post war deaths to starvation and disease as we did for West Germany. So, it’s not like we did it out of revenge and desire to watch them suffer anymore than we did in firebombing cities to ground in both countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 8:46:45 GMT
I don’t agree that the Japanese were in the process of surrendering, because they didn’t after the first bomb drop. The US had intercepted communications between Japan and the USSR asking for the latter to mediate a surrender. US military leaders at the time advised Truman that Japan was essentially defeated. Sure, it might not have been the unconditional surrender the US wanted, but certainly a conditional surrender was preferable to nuking two cities, no? Unless the goal wasn't actually ending the bloodshed, but scaring the hell out of Stalin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 26, 2020 10:24:54 GMT
Interesting.Did the ends justify the means when the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Some analysts believe Japan was about to surrender anyways.
I actually think in that case the ends were more about a display of power to the Soviets. The Japanese were willing to surrender as long as the US agreed not to harm the emperor. Which the US agreed to in the end anyhow. Sure, there was some speculation that the generals would rebel and try to continue the war but surely you deal with that eventuality if/when it happens and deal with it proportionally - you don't just nuke two cities just in case. So I would say in that case the ends absolutely did not justify the means. On the day of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Japanese cabinet was debating if they should surrender or not so it wasn't unanimous. Some really wanted to fight till the end. Some argue that Japan was ready to surrender but the real question is: were the Allies aware of that? Because if they weren't, then the question is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20 and the decision to drop the bomb was made based on the information they had back then, not on what historians found out later.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 10:54:03 GMT
I actually think in that case the ends were more about a display of power to the Soviets. The Japanese were willing to surrender as long as the US agreed not to harm the emperor. Which the US agreed to in the end anyhow. Sure, there was some speculation that the generals would rebel and try to continue the war but surely you deal with that eventuality if/when it happens and deal with it proportionally - you don't just nuke two cities just in case. So I would say in that case the ends absolutely did not justify the means. On the day of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Japanese cabinet was debating if they should surrender or not so it wasn't unanimous. Some really wanted to fight till the end. Some argue that Japan was ready to surrender but the real question is: were the Allies aware of that? Because if they weren't, then the question is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20 and the decision to drop the bomb was made based on the information they had back then, not on what historians found out later. They were certainly aware surrender was being considered anyway. But even if we give the Allies the benefit of the doubt - dropping two nukes is a bit much, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 26, 2020 11:11:52 GMT
On the day of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Japanese cabinet was debating if they should surrender or not so it wasn't unanimous. Some really wanted to fight till the end. Some argue that Japan was ready to surrender but the real question is: were the Allies aware of that? Because if they weren't, then the question is irrelevant. Hindsight is 20/20 and the decision to drop the bomb was made based on the information they had back then, not on what historians found out later. They were certainly aware surrender was being considered anyway. But even if we give the Allies the benefit of the doubt - dropping two nukes is a bit much, no? But Japan didn't really made any formal offers of surrendering didn't they? The most common explanation for the decision to drop a second bomb is apparently because the US wanted to show Japan that they had the capacity to build several atomic bombs. Japan had their nuclear program and would likely be aware of how difficult it was to build a functioning nuclear weapon. Indeed some in the Japanese military were skeptical that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Some argued that even if the US had built one, they couldn't have built any more. Apparently the decision to drop two bombs was already being discussed in 1944.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 11:36:08 GMT
They were certainly aware surrender was being considered anyway. But even if we give the Allies the benefit of the doubt - dropping two nukes is a bit much, no? But Japan didn't really made any formal offers of surrendering didn't they? The most common explanation for the decision to drop a second bomb is apparently because the US wanted to show Japan that they had the capacity to build several atomic bombs. Japan had their nuclear program and would likely be aware of how difficult it was to build a functioning nuclear weapon. Indeed some in the Japanese military were skeptical that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Some argued that even if the US had built one, they couldn't have built any more. Apparently the decision to drop two bombs was already being discussed in 1944. While this is interesting, I suppose it doesn't really matter to my initial point what we make of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suppose Truman had good intentions and he thought dropping 2 nukes was the best way to save American, Japanese and Russian lives. Does the fact that he couldn't be sure that this was indeed the best way to achieve those ends mean he could not justify his means? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 26, 2020 12:07:25 GMT
Interesting.Did the ends justify the means when the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Some analysts believe Japan was about to surrender anyways.
I actually think in that case the ends were more about a display of power to the Soviets. The Japanese were willing to surrender as long as the US agreed not to harm the emperor. Which the US agreed to in the end anyhow. Sure, there was some speculation that the generals would rebel and try to continue the war but surely you deal with that eventuality if/when it happens and deal with it proportionally - you don't just nuke two cities just in case. So I would say in that case the ends absolutely did not justify the means. Well there was a 90 year gap. Plus there's no guarantee Canada would have been granted independence if the American Revolution hadn't happened. I would say yes definitely because it ended slavery in America. I'm not enough of an expert on the civil war though to assess how much that was actually Lincoln's primary desired end though. And for all we know, there may have been a more peaceful route to emancipation in some alternate universe. For sure there are answers to all those questions...but the hypothetical structure of your OP was more of a 'how do we know?' And more importantly how would we have known at the time? Perhaps Canada has what autonomy it now has due to the fact that the US 'made it out' way back when. I"m not sure. As I read up on it, I find they still are part of the British commonwealth...but have they suffered from that longer association?
And as to ending slavery by fighting the civil war, that's a good point. But, given the forceful nature of that event, the terrible cost and the long term hard feelings in the aftermath...continued abhorrent racism in the south almost up to this day, might we imagine a different outcome if somehow the south could have been brought to deal with and end slavery slavery on its own? IOW, we could consider how a different course may have affected the aftermath.
OF COURSE it's pretty much idle conjecture in that we can't go back and undo anything. But I would imagine (hope) political agendas might be formed looking at history and the outcomes of various key events to TRY to learn from any perceived mistakes. EG, if instead of engaging in a bloody war, might Lincoln have worked harder at a diplomatic settlement?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 12:15:34 GMT
if instead of engaging in a bloody war, might Lincoln have worked harder at a diplomatic settlement? But then perhaps if he'd done so it would have failed and prolonged slavery. I suppose putting aside all the real world examples for the time being, since the ends are unknown at the time of acting, and even after the fact we can't know what would have happened if we had acted differently, can the ends ever justify the means? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 26, 2020 12:25:03 GMT
if instead of engaging in a bloody war, might Lincoln have worked harder at a diplomatic settlement? But then perhaps if he'd done so it would have failed and prolonged slavery. I suppose putting aside all the real world examples for the time being, since the ends are unknown at the time of acting, and even after the fact we can't know what would have happened if we had acted differently, can the ends ever justify the means? Interesting that folks would be discussing this just as I read an interesting article which makes a compelling case that the Civil War was actually a mistake: www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2020/08/lincoln-was-not-a-great-president.html#more-183831
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 26, 2020 12:32:47 GMT
But Japan didn't really made any formal offers of surrendering didn't they? The most common explanation for the decision to drop a second bomb is apparently because the US wanted to show Japan that they had the capacity to build several atomic bombs. Japan had their nuclear program and would likely be aware of how difficult it was to build a functioning nuclear weapon. Indeed some in the Japanese military were skeptical that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Some argued that even if the US had built one, they couldn't have built any more. Apparently the decision to drop two bombs was already being discussed in 1944. While this is interesting, I suppose it doesn't really matter to my initial point what we make of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suppose Truman had good intentions and he thought dropping 2 nukes was the best way to save American, Japanese and Russian lives. Does the fact that he couldn't be sure that this was indeed the best way to achieve those ends mean he could not justify his means? The truth is that I don't know. Bertrand Russel thought nuclear war was inevitable and I happen to think that if nuclear weapons were out of the equation, then conventional war was inevitable. I believe it was nuclear weapons that made war between great powers obsolete which is why don't favor of nuclear disarmament. But unlike Bertrand Russel, I'm talking with the benefit of hindsight. With the US and USSR both aware of the destructive power that each side possessed, there was nothing to gain in engaging war and that's probably the first time in History that something like that has happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 26, 2020 12:39:18 GMT
But then perhaps if he'd done so it would have failed and prolonged slavery. I suppose putting aside all the real world examples for the time being, since the ends are unknown at the time of acting, and even after the fact we can't know what would have happened if we had acted differently, can the ends ever justify the means? Interesting that folks would be discussing this just as I read an interesting article which makes a compelling case that the Civil War was actually a mistake: www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2020/08/lincoln-was-not-a-great-president.html#more-183831 Interesting article. While I agree that slavery would eventually end, I'm not entirely sure if would for the best if the southern US states suceeded and were allowed to form their own country. What happens in the Americas once the World War 1 starts? Could we see the USA and CSA joining different sides of the conflict? Would they stay neutral?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 26, 2020 13:33:51 GMT
Interesting article. While I agree that slavery would eventually end, I'm not entirely sure if would for the best if the southern US states suceeded and were allowed to form their own country. What happens in the Americas once the World War 1 starts? Could we see the USA and CSA joining different sides of the conflict? Would they stay neutral? Yeah, I didn't necessarily agree with everything in the article, it just made some very interesting cases for propositions I had never entertained before.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 13:36:43 GMT
The truth is that I don't know. Me neither - it's pretty scary that someone like Russell who was a pacifist and not wholly unsympathetic to the USSR would advocate nuking it on the basis that it was the best way to prevent all-out nuclear war and the only reason we know he was wrong is that we have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe if the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone down differently, we'd all be in our fallout shelters saying "Oh, why didn't we listen to Russell!" Yes, it's why I can't really blame N Korea or Iran for wanting to develop a nuclear arsenal when it's probably the best way to protect themselves from a US-backed regime change war. However, the threat of mutually assured destruction didn't so much stop war amongst the great powers as provoke proxy wars in the Third World. I wonder if every state had nuclear capabilities, would war stop completely or would nuclear war become the norm after all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 26, 2020 13:43:09 GMT
The truth is that I don't know. Me neither - it's pretty scary that someone like Russell who was a pacifist and not wholly unsympathetic to the USSR would advocate nuking it on the basis that it was the best way to prevent all-out nuclear war and the only reason we know he was wrong is that we have the benefit of hindsight. Maybe if the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone down differently, we'd all be in our fallout shelters saying "Oh, why didn't we listen to Russell!" So far it has worked for India and Pakistan. But I don't think nuclear proliferation is a good idea either. The less bombs there is, less chances of an accident and we already had some close calls between the US and Soviet/Union and those countries might be the ones responsible with nukes at the moment given their experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 26, 2020 13:53:24 GMT
Makes me ponder other examples of where the ends have been used to justify the means but where we can't know what ends would have been achieved if different means had been applied. Also what about in the here and now? Can the means be justified when the ends are uncertain? I'm skeptical of people who assert that the end doesn't justify the means. First, you really can't certify what constitutes "the end". There is A result, which will lead to other results, and still further results in turn. And I think people who make that assertion will be perfectly willing to cast it away any time the degree of "badness" of the means, as they measure it, is outweighed by the degree of "goodness" of the result, also as they measure it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 26, 2020 13:56:15 GMT
But then perhaps if he'd done so it would have failed and prolonged slavery. I suppose putting aside all the real world examples for the time being, since the ends are unknown at the time of acting, and even after the fact we can't know what would have happened if we had acted differently, can the ends ever justify the means? Interesting that folks would be discussing this just as I read an interesting article which makes a compelling case that the Civil War was actually a mistake: www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2020/08/lincoln-was-not-a-great-president.html#more-183831 One point of contention regarding Point 4 is that some have suggested Lincoln exaggerated his racism in the debate with Douglas so as to get elected - that if he had been too pro-equality, he would not have been elected and then could not have done anything against slavery. I don't know how true that is, but it seems at least plausible.
|
|
