|
Dana, this is the simplest redaction of the difference between taking hostages and bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When you take hostages, or engage in acts of terror, you are attempting to use the moral decency of your opponent as a weapon to hinder his actions. You are counting on an inequity of moral hindrance to make your actions effective.
“I am willing to kill children. You are not willing to let children die. Therefore, I have created a position of strength by exploiting your moral hinderance.”
If there is no moral hindrance on the part of your opponent, then they will not care that you kill their women and children; they will use their overpowering military might to crush you regardless of the costs. Any action which creates exploits a position of strength through the exploitation of the moral rectitude, compassion, charity, or love of your opponent cannot hold the moral high ground.
This is true in Chechnya. This is true in Gaza. This is true in Iraq. This is true in business, in law, in communities, and in families.
Bombing major cities in a time of war is a different act altogether. The essential task is not to use the compassion of your enemy against him, it is to remove his ability to wage war. When you level two of his major centers of economic strength, including shipping yards, armament factories, military bases, and yes, civilian populations that are working to support a war of aggression, your primary goal is to remove his ability to wage war.
There are many, many valid arguments to be made against our actions in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they are not equivalent acts with a terrorist group seizing hostages.
-sm
|