• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why not attack Russia?

Should the Allis have gone all the way to Moscow?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • No

    Votes: 13 81.3%

  • Total voters
    16

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Okay... I'm not sure... But will admit, there are no promises that causing destruction can save lives
Allow me to offer that causing so much destruction will result in serious revolt, fanatical rebellion, and a lot of justifiable paranoia even among the supposed allies that decided for doing it.

I have a hard time trying to think of any exceptions that do not resemble some form of zombie apocalypse.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
We had the atomic bomb and they had already lost almost 20 million people and suffered much destruction. We would have just needed to drop ten atomic bombs on Russia and eventually they would withdrawal from Eastern Europe, after losing a million more people to some bomb...that would be 1 million dead to save tens of millions!

You think the US had ten atomic bombs and the delivery capability required for this plan? They did not
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Well, for what it's worth, communism fell, so it was not necessary to attack Russia afterall.

It was international crimes though when occupying eastern Europe. We had reason to liberate those conquered nations. Almost as much reason as liberate France and other nations from Nazi occupation.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Whichever approach causes less deaths and suffering is what i prefer.

Sure...but life isn't so simple. Any society which would undertake pre-emptive nuclear warfare against a non-nuclear opponent...even moreso, an erstwhile ally...would doom themselves. The US survived the two strikes against Japan, but this was a country which had attacked them, committed all sorts of atrocities, and ultimately this was seen as a clean way of shortening the war. Only afterwards was it understood to be less clean than many had supposed. Starting a new war though??

I don't think such grand ethical egoism on a national scale is ultimately sustainable. I'm sure some wouldn't agree with me, and I think the era does impact a little, but still...

Also, how do you know which would cause less suffering and death? At best, this is a guess. Unlike Japan, Russia wasn't a defeated enemy with a leadership lying to the population in order to stave off the inevitable.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Sure...but life isn't so simple. Any society which would undertake pre-emptive nuclear warfare against a non-nuclear opponent...even moreso, an erstwhile ally...would doom themselves. The US survived the two strikes against Japan, but this was a country which had attacked them, committed all sorts of atrocities, and ultimately this was seen as a clean way of shortening the war. Only afterwards was it understood to be less clean than many had supposed. Starting a new war though??

I don't think such grand ethical egoism on a national scale is ultimately sustainable. I'm sure some wouldn't agree with me, and I think the era does impact a little, but still...

Also, how do you know which would cause less suffering and death? At best, this is a guess. Unlike Japan, Russia wasn't a defeated enemy with a leadership lying to the population in order to stave off the inevitable.
it's possible that if the Soviet Union got kicked out of those Eastern European nations, it would have saved lives, but there is no way to know for sure.
 
Top