• circularfish@beehaw.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.