"The 'Kill Hitler As A Baby' Argument" or "Would You Kill Thousands To End A War?"

[Seil]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26YLehuMydo) cropped up recently. For those people that didn't click the link, it's a minute and a half of Oppenheimer - a member of the Manhattan project, one of the persons who created the atomic bomb - trying not to cry at what he's done.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, didn't they? We were at war! Why shouldn't we have dropped a bomb that killed millions and made the surrounding land unfit for habitation?

[Amake]

Truman later said he regretted having ordered the bombs. He didn't know what a nuclear bomb would do, all he had been told was that it was a very powerful weapon that would make the enemy shit their pants with fear. While this story may or may not have been constructed after the fact, it still tells us that using the bomb was wrong, a mistake; just the kind of history we should try to learn from. If we need more than two cities to learn not to nuke people, then we are doomed - literally - and I'd like to think the people with the fingers on the triggers understand that.

Now, if I was in charge of a war, which I hope not to be, I'd try to remember what the more enlightened philosophers said back in the day when most kings went to war if they just thought they could take some land from another king: That the only honorable purpose of war is to destroy your enemy's ability to make war. If you do any less you invite defeat; if you do any more you invite depravity. (Fun exercise: study how this may or may not apply to the Viet Nam war, the six day war, the Gulf war, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the proposed war on Iran, the war on terror, the war on drugs or the war on abortion.)

There are of course innumerable ways to pursue that goal. You could attack your enemy's weaponry, economy, credibility, morale; you could mount a defense that would be impractical for the enemy to attack; you could become the enemy, make friends with them. Killing a bunch of them would be the stupid way, the cheap way, the inhumane way you resort to when you fail to think of anything better. Depending on the circumstances it may be the only responsible way, but that's a pretty silly hypothetical; of course you'd do the responsible thing if it's the only thing you can possibly do that's not irresponsible.

Ever notice how everyone acts responsibly in hypothetical scenarios?

[Aerozord]

I say hindsight is 20/20. Just because a choice was wrong doesn't mean it was the wrong choice at the time. Maybe there was a better solution, maybe it just would have led to a nightmarish land war, then there are the unknown effects it would have had on the following cold war.

Its easy to look back on something you did and say if you did something else things would have been better, but that doesn't mean you are right. The old time machine monkey's paw trope.

[Flarecobra]

Especially if you consider that a planned invasion of mainland Japan would've resulted in casualty figures into the millions...

[Amake]

I don't know what should, would or could have happened if this or that; I'm saying that no one should want to use nukes again based on how it has worked out historically. Maybe it saved more than it killed lives or maybe not, but the guilt suffered by those responsible and the trauma of its impact on this world - environmentally, sociologically, whatever - speaks a clear message: Anything would be better than doing this again.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

RE "Kill Hitler as a baby":

"Shoot the dictator and prevent the war? But the dictator is merely the tip of the whole festering boil of social pus from which dictators emerge; shoot one, and there'll be another one along in a minute. Shoot him too? Why not shoot everyone and invade Poland?"

It comes down to you sending into the unprepared past a person with (presumably) advanced technology, or at the very least relevant knowledge of history past that point and the personality capable of murdering a baby in its crib without losing sleep over it.

You know how they say popping a zit only spreads the bacteria out and creates more?

[Magus]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26YLehuMydo) cropped up recently. For those people that didn't click the link, it's a minute and a half of Oppenheimer - a member of the Manhattan project, one of the persons who created the atomic bomb - trying not to cry at what he's done.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, didn't they? We were at war! Why shouldn't we have dropped a bomb that killed millions and made the surrounding land unfit for habitation?

Hey, now.

It didn't kill millions instantaneously. I assume the radiation poisoning would be the only way it got up into the millions.

[Flarecobra]

Hey, now.

It didn't kill millions instantaneously. I assume the radiation poisoning would be the only way it got up into the millions.

Given that combined, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't even kill between 150,000-250,000 people... (http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html) and of those figures, only 15% died from radiation sicknesses.

And if we just wanted to kill people, there were other non-nuclear ways to do so, such as firebombing (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm) which was far more indiscriminate. And also, the two cities have been rebuilt, and people started living in the destroyed area 4 years after the bombing so the "Surrounding land was made uninhabitable" line is kind of made moot.

[Magus]

While he was probably bummed about the bombing of Japan as well, I know Kurt Vonnegut was always quick to point out that the firebombing of Dresden killed more than that.

Basically war sucks regardless of how you kill the people you're killing. You would be better off not starting a war.

Take the war in Syria, for instance. Honestly I think we are better off not getting involved at this point (the point for intervention would have been when Assad had killed 9000+ civilians, prior to an actual oppositional army being created. because then it would have made more sense as a preventative action), and honestly disarming them of their chemical weapons as opposed to bombing targets is probably a better route, even if it leaves the country mired in civil war. It's already cost 100,000+ lives, I don't think bombing targets at this point is going to reverse the course of that war, probably just exacerbate it.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Additionally, assuming you DO manage to kill Hitler, where do you decide to stop? Why not do the same to Stalin and Chairman Mao and avoid the various tragedies there? Why not off Vo Nguyen Giap and preemptively avert both the Vietnam War and the First Indochina War? Off Andrew Jackson and at least put a stopgap to the Trail of Tears? Off George Washington et al and avert the whole geopolitical morasse that is the modern United States of America? Off the grandparents of that asshole neighbor of yours who blares his stereo at 3 AM and never have a bad night's sleep again?

And even if you don't, how do you ensure others don't as well?

[Loyal]

It takes a fairly rare and very particular sort of mindset for one to decide, when pruning a tree of overgrowth and disease, that they'd be better off cutting the whole thing down entirely to spare themselves the trouble later.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Off George Washington et al and avert the whole geopolitical morasse that is the modern United States of America?

Whoa whoa whoa hold on.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

That's George Washington's thoughts on Political Parties. If you think the political system we have today is extremely flawed, don't off him, off the people who ignored him.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

I was exaggerating to make a point towards the end there. Besides, the kind of folks to do this sort of thing probably don't have your research skills K-re$ha

[Magus]

It takes a fairly rare and very particular sort of mindset for one to decide, when pruning a tree of overgrowth and disease, that they'd be better off cutting the whole thing down entirely to spare themselves the trouble later.

It's not rare, sounds like the entirety of the current conservative movement here in the U.S.

[Aerozord]

Altering any major historical event could have completely unexpected side effects. Maybe without Hitler scientists dont defect to America and thus develop nuclear technology in Germany and shortly there after so does Soviet Union who are on horrible terms and both are unaware of the others nuclear capabilities resulting in one side attempting to use nukes while the other retaliates wiping out most of euro-asian continent

Lets get away from nukes though. Without Hitler the nations remain much more feudal and continue small petty wars between super powers. Stiffing globalization and various multi-national efforts. Human genome isn't cracked, space exploration is non-existent, particle physics has no solid evidence to theories, the internet is crippled, and general public is all for slaughtering anyone outside their home nation.

[Loyal]

Practically speaking, timemurder meddling should probably be limited to the last hundred years or so, unless the time travel comes with a Mulligan button. But I'd be cool with preventing the Dark Ages from ever happening.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Practically speaking, timemurder meddling should probably be limited to the last hundred years or so, unless the time travel comes with a Mulligan button. But I'd be cool with preventing the Dark Ages from ever happening.

Hate to break it to you, but those probably weren't as bad (http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html)as (http://listverse.com/2009/01/07/top-10-myths-about-the-middle-ages/) you (http://www.neatorama.com/2012/02/29/five-common-misconceptions-about-the-middle-ages/#!k1AKp)think (http://www.getting-medieval.com/my_weblog/2012/01/top-ten-myths-about-the-middle-ages.html).

In any case, it brings up my point about the people most likely to try and muck with history understanding it the least.

[Flarecobra]

Not to mention a lot of stuff we take for granted come as a result of wartime innovation.

[Aerozord]

Practically speaking, timemurder meddling should probably be limited to the last hundred years or so, unless the time travel comes with a Mulligan button. But I'd be cool with preventing the Dark Ages from ever happening.

there isn't really a way to stop the dark ages anyways. It was move of a cultural movement than something any individual or even Geo-political entity caused. Brought on by things like illness.

Though your other point is something to note. World War 2 was a REALLY long time ago. I mean many of our grandparents weren't even born yet.

[Arhra]

Things get very interesting if you consider the fates of the people from the aborted timeline. What happens to them?

Did you just painlessly murder billions by changing the past?

[Amake]

As far as you know, yes. We might get an alternate timeline, but with no way to observe or interact with it you have erased an entire apparent universe.

[Magus]

Back to the OP: I would totes kill Hitler anyway because I can't think of a worse alternative than 10 million dead. Do you think there's an alternate timeline where Hitler was killed and the body count was even worse? Maybe somebody less incompetent takes over the German high command or something?

[Bard The 5th LW]

Butterfly effect would imply that killing Hitler would probably be commensurate to killing yourself and more or less everyone you know and would ever meet, considering it would entirely change the outcome of basically every event after his birth and the political make-up of the Earth after WWII. Events that conspired in your lifetime, in some small way or large way, were influenced by hundreds of factors, and Hitler was a pretty big factor. Without the exact same pre-set circumstances, your parents could very well have not met.

[Loyal]

Back to the OP: I would totes kill Hitler anyway because I can't think of a worse alternative than 10 million dead. Do you think there's an alternate timeline where Hitler was killed and the body count was even worse? Maybe somebody less incompetent takes over the German high command or something?

http://i.imgur.com/5OzyPXZ.jpg

[Aerozord]

I can't think of a worse alternative than 10 million dead.

11 million dead

[Krylo]

Back to the OP: I would totes kill Hitler anyway because I can't think of a worse alternative than 10 million dead. Do you think there's an alternate timeline where Hitler was killed and the body count was even worse? Maybe somebody less incompetent takes over the German high command or something?

Circuit board manufacturing and the ability to do so on a large scale were created in world war II by US engineers to create proximity fuses. The methods were released for commercial use after the war.

Without circuit boards no modern computers.

Without modern computers, you can knock back medical and safety advances by about 30-50 years or so.

We're talking no MRIs, no heart monitors, no IV monitoring equipment, vaccination research slowed to a crawl, less effective crash protection in cars, slow down in the creation of 'green' technologies (even worse than we have now), etc. etc.

Without the last 50 years of medical and safety advances you're looking at a death toll that's probably closer to the billions than the millions. Even slowing those advances by 5, 10, or 20 years would probably cost at least as many lives as the war.

You could 'safely' attack Hitler in 1943, but by then the Japanese had already bombed Pearl Harbor and your contributions would make little difference. You probably wouldn't even stop the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima 2 years later (maybe if you assassinated Oppenheimer or the Emperor of Japan, but doing that might cause the US and Japan to never become the close allies we did become, as we'd have never been able to dismantle the Japanese military and force them to rely on allied protection, and would alter all kinds of other things, maybe cause more east asian wars into the future, a new emperor instead of democracy might have cropped up, etc etc).

The past happened. Instead of worrying about whether you could change it, worry about how you can change the future and/or the present.

All we, as people, can do, is try to do the best we can at any given point in time and hope it works out well. There's no telling what effects our actions could have, and it's really pretty pointless to consider changing what has been.

For all you know we live in the best of all possible worlds, as depressing as that may seem at times. But the point is, unless you're God with perfect knowledge of all outcomes, you probably shouldn't fuck around.

[Overcast]

Unless you can without any consequences, then fuck around as much as you want.

[Bard The 5th LW]

If you wanted to do these things without murder and maybe get a nature vs. nurture experiment out of it too, you could also use your temporal omnipotence to answer the age old question: "What would happen if I switched Hitler and Charlie Chaplin at birth?"

Edit: Actually, thinking about it more, I think its VERY interesting that we all assume we just have to fire a bullet into pre-Holocaust Hitler's crib. Is there NO other way we could think of subduing would-be-dictators?

[Aerozord]

There is another moral issue, can you ethically murder someone for something they haven't done yet. Simply being back in time alters events, no guarantee the new time line will result in an evil Hitler.

[Magus]

Butterfly effect would imply that killing Hitler would probably be commensurate to killing yourself and more or less everyone you know and would ever meet, considering it would entirely change the outcome of basically every event after his birth and the political make-up of the Earth after WWII. Events that conspired in your lifetime, in some small way or large way, were influenced by hundreds of factors, and Hitler was a pretty big factor. Without the exact same pre-set circumstances, your parents could very well have not met.

That's why, even though they are fun to think about, the chances of running into a parallel universe with an exact twin of yours seems unlikely, since alleles are expressed somewhat randomly. Even if major historical events were all the same, what's the likelihood that throughout the past 10,000 years the exact same set of genes would be expressed in every single coupling in your lineage?

There is another moral issue, can you ethically murder someone for something they haven't done yet. Simply being back in time alters events, no guarantee the new time line will result in an evil Hitler.

What you're saying is we need to get Hitler out of the WWI draft and get him a full scholarship to the Vienna art school?

Re: Killing Hitler in 1943, that might help stop/ameliorate the final solution anyway.

[PyrosNine]

Pyros goes back in time, gets Hitler a decent art instructor and pays for numerous paintings, giving him a posh lifestyle and respectable income, while Pyros also personally pushing for reform and industrial mobilization to bring the country back out depression.

Then I go to Japan and show them who the TRUE EMPERAH is, humiliating the OP Military generals back into submissiveness, making the Emperor fanboys actually respect the actual emperor's wishes.

Nazi party stays a small, extremist organization, Germany gets out of post WWI slump, Japan never starts aggression with Russia and China, (thus also possibly inhibiting the rise of Communism in China), and if Communism in Russia goes about the same way, we'll just have a more violent version of the Cold War.

Only problem is that then I'll somehow have to find a way to set up Japanese's mega-capitalism so that it follows it's after war rise and thus The Legend of Zelda comes out.

I'll only know if I really f'ed up if I suddenly become a dog.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

So am I clear on the "going back in time and murdering annoying neighbor's grandparents" front or am I going to have to settle for filing another boring old noise complaint?

[PyrosNine]

You could also just murder your annoying neighbor, saving the expense and headache of time travel, Shy.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to hide a body nowadays?

[Magus]

The slightest examination of Looper ruins the entire basis of the plot, so I try not to. 'Cause I liked it so much.