this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10170 readers
96 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there is a similar moral calculus here to that in WWII with decisions to bomb urban areas. Once you have been attacked and find yourself in an existential struggle, use of weapons becomes a question of the scope of innocent life lost versus the likelihood that lives will be saved.
In this case I think it is understandable that people are uneasy about the use of cluster munitions. The risks are well known but the benefits here seem … less so. That take may be wrong, but the point is that people have a right to feel queasy about the situation.
Not sure WWII is the best model for moral calculus: invade Japan killing 500,000 to 1 million soldiers, or nuke 2 cities killing only ~~50,000~~... oops, over 200,000 innocent civilians.
I think it's been a long time since there's been a real winner in any war. All wars for several centuries already, seem to have been a lose-lose scenario except for some well positioned elites.