Syria poison gas

[buckchuckler]

Easy answer.  When the machines take over we don't want the gas around. 


But in seriousness, I think gas was banned because it was easy to ban due to its relatively low effectiveness.  It is easy (at least was when gas was used) to equip soldiers against its effects. 

It was easy for countries to say "look we care and we aren't evil" when really it was more of a "eh, this stuff is unpredictable and doesn't really work well anyways" deal.

And since it has been banned for going on 100 years, it has been bestowed a stigma that it is worse than anything else, when that really may or may not be true.  I don't know, and hope to never find out.

[buckchuckler]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians. 

[Benny B]

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Secondary target that missed the mark.  But still considered a successful miss.

[#UnleashSean]

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

All major cities in Japan had military districts. It was a common theme to put them intertwined with civilians to deter bombings (That didn't work at all) Plus all the factories and everything else that goes into war logistics.

Tokyo was also on the list. I believe there were like 10 cities on each day's bombing, and were selected based on air coverage, wind, weather, etc.

[MU82]

Easy answer.  When the machines take over we don't want the gas around. 


But in seriousness, I think gas was banned because it was easy to ban due to its relatively low effectiveness.  It is easy (at least was when gas was used) to equip soldiers against its effects. 

It was easy for countries to say "look we care and we aren't evil" when really it was more of a "eh, this stuff is unpredictable and doesn't really work well anyways" deal.

And since it has been banned for going on 100 years, it has been bestowed a stigma that it is worse than anything else, when that really may or may not be true.  I don't know, and hope to never find out.

This rings true to me, buck.

[mu03eng]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

Yes they did, for all sorts of reasons including we didn't totally know what the power of the weapons were and if you drop it in the middle of a field it doesn't have the psychological impact to say "no seriously, you should probably quit". Whether it really matters or not, we attempted to limit the damage by air bursting the nukes about 1000 feet off the ground as opposed to letting it ground burst where the damage/death would have been at least 10x worse.

[buckchuckler]

Yes they did, for all sorts of reasons including we didn't totally know what the power of the weapons were and if you drop it in the middle of a field it doesn't have the psychological impact to say "no seriously, you should probably quit". Whether it really matters or not, we attempted to limit the damage by air bursting the nukes about 1000 feet off the ground as opposed to letting it ground burst where the damage/death would have been at least 10x worse.

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

[jsglow]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country. 

[mu03eng]

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

There is a difference between low level air burst and high level air burst. Low level air burst, with the right munition type would increase the blast radius (typically under 500 feet) and example of this is the MOAB and the BLU-82. Anything over 500 feet (at least with conventional weapons so I'm extracting here a little) and the air burst method actually starts reducing the effectiveness of the munition (it's a density of air thing)

[buckchuckler]

There is a difference between low level air burst and high level air burst. Low level air burst, with the right munition type would increase the blast radius (typically under 500 feet) and example of this is the MOAB and the BLU-82. Anything over 500 feet (at least with conventional weapons so I'm extracting here a little) and the air burst method actually starts reducing the effectiveness of the munition (it's a density of air thing)

Makes sense, thank you!

[buckchuckler]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

Well written sir.

[buckchuckler]

No wars (or crimes) are moral. Some are just.

This line stuck with me a bit yesterday.  I am very intrigued by the margin between morality and justice.  In most cases I guess I believe they are nearly inseparable, but not in all.  This is a very interesting concept.

It was certainly just to stop the evil happening during WWII.  I guess I would also say it was moral to do so.  Isn't stopping injustice and immorality to some degree moral?  Is it any more moral -- even though it may be just --to hit a country (North Korea for example) with sanctions that will primarily hurt the civilian population which is already in bad shape?

I am clearly not smart enough to know the answer, and not enough of a philosopher to figure it out.  I do find it very interesting though and something I would like to spend a little time exploring.

[Benny B]

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

Mostly correct.  Consider that an explosion is spherical with the bomb at the center.  If you detonate on the ground, half of the "blast sphere" is absorbed by the ground.

With that said, the decision to detonate Little Boy at 600 meters was made with little, if any, regard to death/injury.  In other words - and this is where it gets confusing, not to mention difficult to explain - there was the obvious contemplation that maximizing physical damage would have a correlative effect on death/injury, but strategically, detonation at altitude was strictly for the purpose of maximizing physical damage/destruction, with - at best - indifference given to potential civilian casualties.

To the butler's question, the goal of damage/destruction, not casualties, being the primary goal is pretty apparent when you look at the strategy behind the five potential targets identified: Hiroshima (major military HQ), Kokura (munitions plant), Nagasaki (naval ordnance), Yokohama (aircraft mfg and oil refining) and Niigata (steel/aluminum plants)... notably missing: the three largest cities in Imperial Japan -- Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya (combined population in excess of 10,000,000).  Also corroborating this are the facts that a) the fourth largest city Kyoto, population ~1,000,000, was originally on the target list but was replaced with Nagasaki, population 250,000, and b) fifth largest Yokohama, also ~1,000,000, was also dropped from consideration.  (Niigata remained a potential target, but was neither among the Enola Gay's nor Bockscar's primary or secondary targets.)

If the purpose of the nuclear bombings was to maximize death/injury, then Allied leaders made a huge error in narrowing the primary and secondary targets to four cities that had a collective population of 900,000.

[MU82]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

As the proud son of a WWII vet - my dad, who unfortunately has been gone since 1998, fought in the Battle of the Bulge - I agree with every word of this outstanding post. Well done, glow.

You certainly are right about the level of sacrifice. I explained to my kids how thousands upon thousands of young men who weren't even drafted volunteered to serve, how major corporations shut down their operations so they could make equipment for the war effort, how professional athletes interrupted their careers, how women put their lives on hold to work in factories or as medical personnel, how the war pretty much dominated everything going on in America and abroad (as it should have).

One of the most incredible half-hours of my life was when my son, who was then 9, did a telephone interview with my father about his WWII experiences. I had helped prepare the questions but Ben asked them all. I was on the extension and listened to my father's careful, thoughtful, sometimes painful recollections. He never liked to talk about the war, and to hear this was very powerful and emotional for me.

The summer before my dad died, a bunch of us from our family went to the Holocaust memorial in DC, and I could see how it affected him (and me). A few years after he died, my kids and I watched Ken Burns' incredible documentary about the war, and I got tears in my eyes on more than one occasion.

I am not one who likes to "romanticize" anything - especially anything as brutal as war - but I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in your eloquent post.

[mu03eng]

Mostly correct.  Consider that an explosion is spherical with the bomb at the center.  If you detonate on the ground, half of the "blast sphere" is absorbed by the ground.

With that said, the decision to detonate Little Boy at 600 meters was made with little, if any, regard to death/injury.  In other words - and this is where it gets confusing, not to mention difficult to explain - there was the obvious contemplation that maximizing physical damage would have a correlative effect on death/injury, but strategically, detonation at altitude was strictly for the purpose of maximizing physical damage/destruction, with - at best - indifference given to potential civilian casualties.

To the butler's question, the goal of damage/destruction, not casualties, being the primary goal is pretty apparent when you look at the strategy behind the five potential targets identified: Hiroshima (major military HQ), Kokura (munitions plant), Nagasaki (naval ordnance), Yokohama (aircraft mfg and oil refining) and Niigata (steel/aluminum plants)... notably missing: the three largest cities in Imperial Japan -- Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya (combined population in excess of 10,000,000).  Also corroborating this are the facts that a) the fourth largest city Kyoto, population ~1,000,000, was originally on the target list but was replaced with Nagasaki, population 250,000, and b) fifth largest Yokohama, also ~1,000,000, was also dropped from consideration.  (Niigata remained a potential target, but was neither among the Enola Gay's nor Bockscar's primary or secondary targets.)

If the purpose of the nuclear bombings was to maximize death/injury, then Allied leaders made a huge error in narrowing the primary and secondary targets to four cities that had a collective population of 900,000.

The difference in air density at 1800 feet versus near ground level decreases the effectiveness of the pressure wave by about 30%. Whether they knew that or cared matters but the altitude of the detonation reduced the damage level.

[mu03eng]

As the proud son of a WWII vet - my dad, who unfortunately has been gone since 1998, fought in the Battle of the Bulge - I agree with every word of this outstanding post. Well done, glow.

You certainly are right about the level of sacrifice. I explained to my kids how thousands upon thousands of young men who weren't even drafted volunteered to serve, how major corporations shut down their operations so they could make equipment for the war effort, how professional athletes interrupted their careers, how women put their lives on hold to work in factories or as medical personnel, how the war pretty much dominated everything going on in America and abroad (as it should have).

One of the most incredible half-hours of my life was when my son, who was then 9, did a telephone interview with my father about his WWII experiences. I had helped prepare the questions but Ben asked them all. I was on the extension and listened to my father's careful, thoughtful, sometimes painful recollections. He never liked to talk about the war, and to hear this was very powerful and emotional for me.

The summer before my dad died, a bunch of us from our family went to the Holocaust memorial in DC, and I could see how it affected him (and me). A few years after he died, my kids and I watched Ken Burns' incredible documentary about the war, and I got tears in my eyes on more than one occasion.

I am not one who likes to "romanticize" anything - especially anything as brutal as war - but I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in your eloquent post.

And the sacrifice didn't end with the end of the war. The amount of capital spent on rebuilding Japan, Europe(mostly Germany) and then providing defense for Europe and Japan is astronomical. Certainly it wasn't all altruistic but if that GDP had been kept on shore, it could have solved a lot of problems (while creating a lot of international issues in the power vacuum but still )

[MUBurrow]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

I love this - its fascinating to look at the intermittent dedication to nationbuilding that has occurred in the aftermath of every war in the past 60 years, and compare it to what took place after WWII. Very much a reaction to the isolationism that was blamed for allowing WWII to percolate in the first place, and almost as dramatic an example of national collective action as the actual fighting of the war.

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.
...
Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.

While this is undoubtedly true, that war's lack of moral ambiguity has also plagued our discussions of war and international affairs in a negative way ever since.  For the last 70 years, we look at every remarkably complicated, ambiguous, and morally problematic situation through the lens of WWII. All problematic leaders are like Hitler, and all dovish positions are like 1930s-1940s pacifism. But perhaps the most unique aspect of WWII was the clarity of who the good guys were, who the bad guys were, and what would happen if the bad guys won. That's the exception, not the rule, and I'm optimistic that if faced with that type of existential (but also unambiguous) threat again, this generation and every generation since would also rise to the challenge.

[GGGG]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country. 

While I agree with everything you said here, there was a real good reason why we were so benevolent - and that was we didn't want more of Europe and Asia to fall under Soviet influence.  In fact the initial recovery plan, the Morgenthau Plan, was going to completely prevent the German industrial base from ever recovering fully.

But when people realized how short-sighted this was, and communist insurrections started in places like Greece, the U.S. realized that more investment was needed, and it needed to include Germany.  Otherwise Europe (and Asia) was simply going to fall under Soviet influence more than anything.

[Benny B]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

There was backchanning going on prior to Hiroshima in discussion of a "limited surrender," which added several conditions to the Potsdam Declaration's terms, but as I recall, nothing material was communicated between the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Incidentally, the Supreme Council (basically, Japan's "War Cabinet") was literally in a meeting discussing the possibility of ending the war (accepting the Potsdam Declaration's terms) at the moment Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki.  Even with the knowledge that Nagasaki was just hit by another atomic bomb, the Council's vote to accept Potsdam was 3-3, and even the three voting in favor were doing so under the premise that they would add a condition (to guarantee the Emperor's position).

I have been a WWII junkie for years, and even today, I'm still learning new things.  But early on, I came to the realization - which has only been fortified as time goes on - of the great sacrifice that was made by nearly all Americans, with many making the ultimate sacrifice, in order to not only ensure the American way of life, but to prevent the entire world from succumbing to evil.  It doesn't take much to vision what the entire world may look like today if WWII went a different way... we see pockets of it here and there today, but our grandparents and great-grandparents fought to ensure that such evil would be anomalies, not status quo.

And yet, even today people reduce themselves to accusations of "evil" and "fascist," truly ignorant to what those terms actually mean.

[MU82]

There was backchanning going on prior to Hiroshima in discussion of a "limited surrender," which added several conditions to the Potsdam Declaration's terms, but as I recall, nothing material was communicated between the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Incidentally, the Supreme Council (basically, Japan's "War Cabinet") was literally in a meeting discussing the possibility of ending the war (accepting the Potsdam Declaration's terms) at the moment Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki.  Even with the knowledge that Nagasaki was just hit by another atomic bomb, the Council's vote to accept Potsdam was 3-3, and even the three voting in favor were doing so under the premise that they would add a condition (to guarantee the Emperor's position).

I have been a WWII junkie for years, and even today, I'm still learning new things.  But early on, I came to the realization - which has only been fortified as time goes on - of the great sacrifice that was made by nearly all Americans, with many making the ultimate sacrifice, in order to not only ensure the American way of life, but to prevent the entire world from succumbing to evil.  It doesn't take much to vision what the entire world may look like today if WWII went a different way... we see pockets of it here and there today, but our grandparents and great-grandparents fought to ensure that such evil would be anomalies, not status quo.

And yet, even today people reduce themselves to accusations of "evil" and "fascist," truly ignorant to what those terms actually mean.

Well stated, Benny. I especially like your last paragraph.

[jsglow]

Some really great stuff here.  Thanks for everyone's contribution.

[Coleman]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues. 

[Jockey]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

Very well said, Coleman.

[mu03eng]

Honestly, one of the biggest overlooked impacts that led to victory in WWII was the British holding out in 1940. If the British had lost any number of key engagements (Dunkirk, Battle of Britian, North Africa) Defeating the Nazi's would have become incredibly difficult and probably would have doubled the length of the war if not more. The world owes a lot to the British.

[jsglow]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

We agree completely.