Bakustra wrote:PeZook, your entire proposed moral approach is that if somebody is evil enough, then you can disregard considerations of morality in order to kill them faster. This is exactly how the Nazis thought. They believed that undesirables didn't deserve moral treatment because they were evil in some way.
That's not my position, and you're a fucking retard if you think so. You honestly don't realize that I think it's a moral thing to do to attack the submarine because it prevents death and suffering in the future
Not because it's full of Nazis, and I wrote in one of my earlier posts how I think blowing up an entire city full of civilians to get at one sub would in fact be immoral.
So yes, my view on the situation is, in fact, more nuanced than "RAR ANYTHING GOES TO KILL ONE NAZI", thank you very much.
Bakustra wrote:I will fight until the sun burns out against the idea that you have to adopt Nazi ideology in order to fight Nazis. Now, I'm sure that you will backpedal ever-further from your pinheaded statement. You insisted that any morality should be secondary to defeating the forces of Satan Nazis. Either morality should be considered (and so raping and murdering Nazi POWs is wrong, and so would genocide, and so would killing civilians indiscriminately to damage industry, even if all three are different degrees of wrong) or it should be not, and it would be A-OK to push the "genocide Germany" button. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Goddammit, I never said anything like that. The closest statement to it was that a lot of things become moral if they shorten the war, because thousands of people died every day in fighting and due to outright murder, so it is acceptable to kill people - even many people, as long as it's a smaller number than those who'd otherwise die in the war - as long as it noticeably shortens the war.
So yes, if you could prove that raping Nazis does in fact shorten the war, it would be...well, less immoral, as Stas put it - it creates suffering, but prevents many, many deaths.
Unfortunately the exact opposite
is true - widescale, institutionalized rapes and brutality only galvanize suffering and prolong
Bakustra wrote:Meanwhile, the problem with using hostages is that it assumes that there was some ulterior purpose besides rescuing survivors, so that you can pretend that the hostages were human shields, rather than being the object of the mission they were performing. The idea that there should not be any temporary truces in war is I suppose defensible (though treating Conrad Hays as evil for his role in the Easter Truce of 1944 is frankly disturbing to me)- but he did not declare that he was immune from attack, nor did he fire at the bomber on its first pass or fire back when it attacked.
Didn't I explain why the situations, while not identical, were similar in the aspects that mattered? Didn't I also propose other scenarios, such as shooting a suicide bomber in a crowd, to satisfy your retarded idea that an analogy should always perfectly match the illustrated situation?
Bakustra wrote:A submarine could go on to kill hundreds, or thousands of people, which is why we needed to kill about 800 right now in order to make sure that it's destroyed! Jesus Christ. Please, present the moral calculus which indicates that the immediate deaths of 1600 people (keep in mind that you cannot ensure how many of the survivors you will kill) is outweighed by the lives saved by sinking the U-Boats in question. Bear in mind that if we judge by effectiveness, the attack failed to significantly damage any of the submarines and helped precipitate the deaths of half the survivors. So incorporate the chances of success into your analysis. What do you say? Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Before the Laconia Incident, the allies had already lost about 9.3 million tonnes of shipping.
By the end of 1942, uboats sunk 1644 ships (2640 in total during the war) . Since 30 thousand or so Allied merchant mariners died in the war, we can assume 11 people died per ship sunk.
So by 1942, the Allies have lost about 16 400 men directly to submarine attacks. With about 200 uboats in service, that's 82 sailors killed per submarine, but more importantly, 23 000 tonnes of supplies such as ammunition, fuel, spare parts, oil, medical supplies and food sent to the bottom.
So...three boats, that's 246 sailors potentially killed in the future (or more: remember, at that the time Allied losses to uboats were still rising!). 1942 is also the time of major battles on the Eastern Front: it's hard to estimate the exact impact of lost supplies on the war effort there, but one ton of morphine means over 11 million 24-hour doses. Are Russian soldiers and civilians dying in Stalingrad, people being murdered in the conquered territories...worth less than Italian POWs? More? I'd think about the same...
As for chances of the attacks, air-dropped depth charges have killed plenty of submarines before ; A properly executed attacks by a maritime bomber had a good chance of killing or damaging a uboat enough to hold it up in dry dock for months.
Bakustra wrote:Proportional force? The problem is that proportional force can do nothing but endanger the survivors! This is exactly like trying to rescue hostages when all you have are hand grenades. While the police have more finesse they can bring to bear, that means that the analogy is flawed, since the B-24 couldn't attack the submarines without risking the survivors. Perhaps there was no moral way to bomb the submarine. That's something that my system of morals allows.
It can do something, namely sink or damage the uboats. It's too bad the B-24 couldn't have just launched three Harpoons and blasted the subs with minimal loss of life ; It's also too bad we couldn't have dropped a bomb from orbit on the entire Nazi leadership in 1940. You keep ignoring the fact the submarines would've gotten away if left alone alone ; If a guy throws a bomb into a crowd and then has a change of heart and administers first aid, the cops won't - and shouldn't - generally let him go, even if they have to risk injury to people and damage to property to bring him in.