[laumars]

I understand the point you're making but you are quoting numbers of suffering due to war which defeats the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by going to war.

Plus the American involvement wasn't out of humanitarian reasons either. They only joined the war after getting attacked by Japan themselves. Which, which since I support retaliatory action if another party has already initiated war, would mean the US followed my stance on war in that regard.

[mikeash]

How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese?

Yes, war causes suffering. It can also prevent suffering. This would only be contradictory if I were for some reason arguing that all war is good, which I most certainly am not.

I would argue that the US did join the war partly out of humanitarian reasons, since the war was precipitated by economic sanctions that were enacted due to Japan's actions in China. But ultimately my argument has nothing to do with their reasons.

[laumars]

> How does quoting the suffering of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese defeat the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by the Americans going to war with the Japanese?

Because you are using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war. It's a cyclic argument with each new participant upping the stakes; each time bringing about more suffering.

In the case of the America vs Japan conflict during WW2, America's "humanitarianism" lead to two nuclear bomb being dropped causing around two hundred thousands casualties - many of who suffered long deaths from radiation exposure. Yes it shortened the war, but at what cost? We'll never know which hypothetical scenario would have saved the most lives but it's fair to say that America's involvement did contribute to large scale suffering too.

[mikeash]

What is wrong with using the sorrow of war to justify the means of war? A thing can be both good and bad. Sometimes war is justified and is a good thing, relative to not going to war. Sometimes war is good because it puts a stop to a bad war. There is nothing contradictory about this.

[laumars]

I get the point you're trying to make but that very statement is contradictory. Something cannot be both good and bad. It can have good and bad effects but overall it cannot coexist in both states simultaneously. And as for why I think it's wrong to use sorrow to justify war; I had already addressed that point about the constant upping of the stakes.

I have a feeling we might have to agree to disagree on those points though because like most philosophical debates, it's really a question of opinion and perspective rather than something that can be empirically proven. That's not to say I haven't appreciated reading your views on this topic though :)

[astrodust]

It was attitudes like that, that the US couldn't engage first, which forced the hand of the US leadership. They needed Japan to attack first, so they did everything they could to bring that about.

After Pearl Harbor everything fell into place. Germany and Japan could be tackled not from a diplomatic perspective, or via proxies, but directly.

[laumars]

I'm not actually against sending troops to support allies when war has been thrust upon them. In that kind of situation I'd argue that America wouldn't have started the war even if they did intervene before Perl Harbour as the Germans and Japanese were already at war with most of the rest of the world. It's more the instigation of war I was arguing against rather than retaliation.