The Chigago Boyz have also been discussing that Lancet article:
(Hat tip to James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket.)
Shannon Love's posts and the comments to them engage with this post by Daniel of Crooked Timber and its comments. Later on Chris Bertram, also of Crooked Timber, posted this follow up about the morality of air strikes, also attended by comments from Shannon Love and others.
ANNOYED BY COMPUTER STUPIDITY UPDATE: I tried to sumbit a comment to Ginny's Chicago Boyz post but it was rejected by the system due to "questionable content." I am mystified. Perhaps the program automatically rejects various WWII keywords as likely to degrade debate. Anyway, I'll assuage my frustration by posting my comment here:
An anonymous commenter says (in reply to John F): "the real issue is the capacity of modern warfare bombs, which is many, many, maby times the capacity of WWII bombs."
Well, no. While it's of course true that we can now build bigger bombs than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they haven't been used.
The defining difference between the bombs actually used in Iraq and WWII bombs is that modern technology can deliver bombs/missiles much more accurately.
So, as John F says, one would expect fewer unintended victims.
posted by Natalie at 10:59 AM