Ketara wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.

'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.

But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.

You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.

The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.

No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.

I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.

Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.

'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.

But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.

You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.

The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.

No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.

I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.

You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Ketara wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.

'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.

But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.

You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.

The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.

No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.

I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.

You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

See, that's the kind of thinking I can get behind!

Shame Frazzled didn't take MacArthurs place....

Frazzled wrote:
You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Sure.

Use the research, but nobody is saying that those guys aren't dicks.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Sure.

Use the research, but nobody is saying that those guys aren't dicks.

They certainly couldn't have been put on trial for war crimes. That would have alerted the Soviets to the US acquisition of the biowarfare information.