BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 08:07 AM

Why on earth must people opt for slinging accusations from the shadows rather than actually confronting things they don't agree with?
'Guest" seems to have taken the place of the tried and trusted "anon" in these non-arguments.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:45 AM

" who disagree over matters of fact "
No fact - just opinion -and many "guests", notebly yourself, scurry back under their bridge when challenged
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:36 AM

Playing the 'I am posting under my own name' card and calling anonymous GUESTs who disagree over matters of fact 'cowardly trolls' comes over as pompus.

You must be new here to have only just recognized the pomposity emanating from this poster and his fellow travellers.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:30 AM

"Oh by the way Jim I think Harry Weldon was a Lecturer at Magdalen College Oxford long before he joined up to serve in the RAF."
Obviously had military inclinations then
Doesn't make that much difference, does it - some people might be miltaristically inclined (this feller seems to prefer to be identified as such - "Wing Commander T.D. Weldon,") - most human beings aren't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:45 AM

"Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford"

Oh by the way Jim I think Harry Weldon was a Lecturer at Magdalen College Oxford long before he joined up to serve in the RAF.

Born - 5th December 1896

Won a scholarship to read literae humaniores at Magdalen College, Oxford, which he postponed to become an officer in the Royal Field Artillery in 1915.

He spent World War I in France and Belgium, rising to acting captain, being wounded and winning the Military Cross and bar.

Finally went to Oxford in 1919 and graduated with a first class degree in 1921.

Elected a fellow and philosophy tutor at his college in 1923

Served as Rhodes travelling fellow in 1930.

Became a temporary civil servant in 1939.

Then joined the RAF in 1942 serving as Personal Staff Officer to Arthur Harris in RAF Bomber Command at High Wycombe from 1942 to 1945.

He died from cerebral hemorrhage in 1958.

So Jim out of his 62 years on this earth he spent a total of 6 years
serving in the armed forces in time of war and 33 years as an academic - So not much of a militarist after all then eh?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,4 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:41 AM

Playing the 'I am posting under my own name' card and calling anonymous GUESTs who disagree over matters of fact 'cowardly trolls' comes over as pompus.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:39 AM

"Sorry Jim but I thought you wrote that the Japanese had already decided to execute the prisoners,"
I did - what's your point?
Whatever the Japanese military men were McCarthy remained a compassionate human being.
Any issue I have is with militarism and bestiality in any shape or form, not with any particular race, creed or colour off such.
You appear to have a blind-spot where compassion and humanity are concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:26 AM

Sorry Jim but I thought you wrote that the Japanese had already decided to execute the prisoners, that the thing that saved them was the fact that they were protected from the blast of the bomb due to the fact that they were in the act of digging their own mass grave. I would therefore think it not only likely but highly probable that had the bomb not been dropped those POWs would have been executed as ordered - don't you? - or did you think that the Camp Commandant was only kidding when he ordered the prisoners to dig their own grave?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:19 AM

"So Jim are you telling us that had the bomb not been dropped that Camp Commandant could very well have used that self same sword to chop the good Doctor's head off as ordered?"
Did I say that - don't think I did, in fact, I made a point of describing the treatment meted out by the Japanese military - keep up.
I was pointing out that despite the treatment received at the hands of the Japanese, McCarthy's humanity rose above it and he managed to remain a human being - unlike some here who have never experienced what he did.
"Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford [lecturing on "The Ethics of Bombing"]:"
Do you really draw on the opinions of militarists for your moral philosophy - unbelievable, but it does explain a lot!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:19 AM

No guessing on my part Steve - "study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley" - Source: page 340 of the book written in 1999 by Richard B. Frank, entitled "Downfall": The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-41424-7.

The report and the study carried out for Stimson by William Shockley is a historical fact Steve, whether you like it or not.

However as an exercise in logic you have two vastly different types of bomb and both are prototypes never been used in anger. Care to explain how they could have been used in a threatening non-destructive way? Once you have dropped them, if they detonate, what are you going to do then?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:02 AM

"I've just got back from a few days of watching films in Dublin - the first of those was a remarkable documentary on a West Cork doctor, Aiden McCarthy, who became a medical officer in the British army during the war.
Having served at Dunkirk and having earned the George Cross for saving lives, he volunteered to serve in Asia, was captured by the Japanese at Singapore and was a prisoner for four years as a P.O.W.
He ended up being shipped to Nagasaki, where he and some of his fellow prisoners narrowly escaped death when the bomb was dropped.
Despite his appalling experiences at the hands of the Japanese, and in spite of the fact that their captors had decided to execute them all, McCarthy and others survived the blast - thanks largely to the mass grave they had been forced to dig for themselves.
He found himself the senior officer in the camp and the camp commandant presented him with his military sword as a gesture of gratitude for having saved the lives of the surviving troops at the camp when the newly-released Australians attempted to tear them apart.
That, to me, seems a breathtaking example of humanity that is sadly lacking in discussions of war and "our enemies".
Jim Carroll"

So Jim are you telling us that had the bomb not been dropped that Camp Commandant could very well have used that self same sword to chop the good Doctor's head off as ordered?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:52 AM

Stop shifting the goalposts. You ARE guessing when you come up with your what-if casualty numbers had the bombs not been used, or used in a threatening rather than a destructive manner. Historical fact is one thing. Unsupportable conjecture is entirely another.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:44 AM

GUEST,Derrick - 12 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM

The top estimated number of fatalities was in the region of 1 million US dead plus somewhere between 5 to 10 million Japanese dead. Those were the figures worked out at the time and given to the US Secretary of War. It was on studies and information such as this made at the time by those involved that the decision to use the atomic bombs available in August. So Guest Derrick I am not guessing, merely using the documented and well recorded information available on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:20 AM

Good stuff again, Jim. And you have more patience than I have with the irritating and cowardly Guest troll. One fine day the owners of this site will see the light and make everyone have a unique moniker.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:52 AM

"Israel, unlike Hamas does not target civilians"
It has been calculated (by The Washington Institute) that %72 of casualties who have perished in Gaza have been civilians - all of head-colds, no doubt!
Not only, "my weapons are more peaceful than your weapons" but now they are more discriminating.
I note that one of the up-and-coming industries in Israel is the manufacture and sale of drones.
Condemning the use of weapons is not Antisemitic, but associating the use of those weapons with the Jewish people is, Bruce.
"don't forget to take into consideration who started the conflict in the first place"
"He hit me first sir", you mean?
One giant step back into the schoolyard, it would appear, Don.
"I think that if tribe A was living in its own valley and tribe"
If it was ordinary members of the tribe who started wars, you might have a point - they are the ones exclusively conscripted to go off and kill each other - often under the threat of being clubbed to death by them in charge.
We are all warriors - my arse!!
I've never felt like killing anybody in my life (not even a couple of Mudcatters I could name) and I've never been in the company anybody who has.
Mass killing on this planet is a manipulated exercise, invariably for profit and power (two sides of the same coin).
Interesting to read over the last few days that on several occasions, the Japanese leaders have been booed down at Hiroshima/Nagasaki commemoration ceremonies for having renaged on promises to disassociate Japan from militarism.   
And the beat goes on - it would seem.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:10 AM

I think that if tribe A was living in its own valley and tribe B over the hill attacked and starting killing tribe A with the aim of taking over then tribe A would retaliate with everything it had.

Have we progressed - if the 'tribes' are big enough that no 'police force' can hold one in check ?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM

The bomb's legacy was the Cold War, lest we forget, decades of stand-off that were far from victim-free.

Steve - the possibility of making a nuclear bomb was well known by the scientists and military of several countries, especially the Soviet Union. Germany was well on its way to making one. The cold war would have happened anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM

One thing is the demonstration of superior military technology, the other thing is wiping out cities like Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden.

"The others were even worse" is no excuse at all, let alone a justification.

We must face the fact that all things military are governed by ancient and obscure instincts, similarly to sex, religion, punishment, and many other aspects of human life. We must try to control those instincts, which cannot be done by pretending they did not exist and everything were rational. The ideas about moral values themselves have changed many times in the decades since 1945.

The wish to glory in the past of "our people" is another such instinct, easily exploited by leaders who prepare future disasters and are responsible for present ones. We had better be proud only of our personal achievements, ashamed only of our personal failures, and on our guard against propagandists.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 01:29 AM

The following is an excerpt from a long article on the BBC website:   CLICKY.

Thanks to the work of Japanese historians, we now know much more about Japanese plans in the summer of 1945. Japan had no intention of surrendering. It had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen's militia. When the Americans landed, the Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had, to impose on them casualties that might break their will. If this did not do it, then the remnants of the army and the militias would fight on as guerrillas, protected by the mountains and by the civilian population.

Japanese and American historians have also shown that at the centre of the military system was the Emperor Hirohito, not the hapless prisoner of militarist generals, the version promulgated by MacArthur in 1945 to save him from a war crimes trial, but an all-powerful warlord, who had guided Japan's aggressive expansion at every turn. Hirohito's will had not been broken by defeats at land or sea, it had not been broken by the firestorms or by the effects of the blockade, and it would certainly not have been broken by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something the Japanese had anticipated for months.

What broke Hirohito's will was the terrible new weapon, a single bomb which could kill a hundred thousand at a time. Suddenly Japan was no longer fighting other men, but the very forces of the universe. The most important target the bombs hit was Hirohito's mind - it shocked him into acknowledging that he could not win the final, climatic battle.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:41 PM

We don't like it when Israel does it in Gaza

Israel, unlike Hamas does not target civilians and to say that it does is simply another of your antisemitic canards.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:34 PM

When you are making your moral judgments and assigning blame, don't forget to take into consideration who started the conflict in the first place.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:21 PM

This is also the week when the Fukashima nuclear plant is starting back up.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 09:10 PM

It seems to me that people are pointing at one atrocity to justify another as if one cancelled out the other, when in fact it only goes to prove that they are no different - only one side won (or had bigger and better clubs)...

Sadly, that has become the theme of the thread. Well said Jim, again.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:59 PM

It seems to me that people are pointing at one atrocity to justify another as if one cancelled out the other, when in fact it only goes to prove that they are no different - only one side won (or had bigger and better clubs) - seems important to some people.
The Japanese regime was a brutal militaristic one - no argument on that one.
Does that justify the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians and condemning generations to possible deformities, genetic defects and slow, agonizing deaths? not in my book.
The inventor of the bomb, J Robert Oppenheimer described its use as "a tragic mistake on an already defeated enemy"
A pilot who took part in the raid, Claude Robert Eatherly, became consumed by guilt, first involving himself in speaking to pacifist groups and eventually attempted suicide.
Rather than learning from the use, necessary or otherwise, of these obscene weapons, the world entered into an arms race, placing my generation, and the generation that followed under a massive shadow - I remember it being declared that the nuclear clock had now reached one minute to midnight at one stage - I was still in my twenties.
By the mid-sixties there was talk of "nuking" Vietamese peasants "back to the Stone Age"
Weapons of mass destruction have moved on from being "defensive" and are now commodities to be sold by "those who value freedom" to those who suppress that freedom - Israel attempted to assist apartheid South Africa to become a nuclear threat.
It seems we have learned nothing in the intervening years.
I've just got back from a few days of watching films in Dublin - the first of those was a remarkable documentary on a West Cork doctor, Aiden McCarthy, who became a medical officer in the British army during the war.
Having served at Dunkirk and having earned the George Cross for saving lives, he volunteered to serve in Asia, was captured by the Japanese at Singapore and was a prisoner for four years as a P.O.W.
He ended up being shipped to Nagasaki, where he and some of his fellow prisoners narrowly escaped death when the bomb was dropped.
Despite his appalling experiences at the hands of the Japanese, and in spite of the fact that their captors had decided to execute them all, McCarthy and others survived the blast - thanks largely to the mass grave they had been forced to dig for themselves.
He found himself the senior officer in the camp and the camp commandant presented him with his military sword as a gesture of gratitude for having saved the lives of the surviving troops at the camp when the newly-released Australians attempted to tear them apart.
That, to me, seems a breathtaking example of humanity that is sadly lacking in discussions of war and "our enemies".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:50 PM

In Vietnam, there was considerable crossover between combatants and "innocent civilians." A lot of what was going on in Vietnam amounted to guerilla warfare.

A far different kind of conflict than WWII. It's disingenuous to try to draw moral equivalents.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:39 PM

Guest's moral points were very good ones, Don. Why the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians? We don't like it when Israel does it in Gaza and we don't like it when terrorists plant bombs in pubs or on underground trains. If you can justify the use of those two bombs you have to address that. And it's no good arguing that they did it or might have done it. If you win a war in spite of moral considerations you're very unlikely to have won hearts and minds.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:34 PM

Not a game to play, Don. Just trying to give you a reality check;) It seems it passed you by. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:06 PM

Steve, the point was not to prove that we could be more vicious than the Japanese, the aim was to end the war quickly and prevent the enormous cost in lives of both allied troops and Japanese military and civilians. If we had had to invade the Japanese home islands, the war could have stretched out to many more months, if not years, with enormous cost in lives on both sides, far greater than that cause by the A-bombs.

Do you think for one moment that if the Japanese had had the A-bomb, they wouldn't have use it, especially all along the American western seaboard: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and, yes, Vancouver, B.C. as well?

Hitler was close enough to having a workable A-bomb, complete with V-2s that could reach London easily, and an as yet untested ICBM, the A-9 A-10 (two stage) that if the war in Europe had dragged on for another few months, things could have got very nasty indeed, and this would be a vastly different world today.

It wasn't a question of who could out-vicious who, it was a matter of bringing a long, bloody war to a quick end.   

And Guest, the Vietnam war is an entirely different issue with different dynamics—and I'm not going to get tangled up in that!   Sorry. Not going to play.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:25 PM

You need to answer that, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:20 PM

Don F. Why punish innocent civilians for the crimes of the military? Should innocent USA citizens be slaughtered for the pain and suffering their military dished out on innocent civilians with napalm abd bombs in Vietbam? Should you be punished for the dastardly crimes of murders?

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:03 PM

But Don, surely you're not trying to make the argument that the viciousness of the Japanese justified even more viciousness on our part. It isn't a competition, you do something very bad so I'll do something worse and to hell with the morals, is it?

I note also that those people in this thread who disagree with me that there is little evidence that the bombs saved lives are at least being measured. It's a very tough matter, is this. I don't know whether doing things differently, that is by using the bomb in a more threatening rather than destructive mode, or not at all, would have cost more lives. Likewise, the people who express certainty that the bomb saved lives in the long run are deluded. Maybe the bomb did, maybe it didn't. The bomb's legacy was the Cold War, lest we forget, decades of stand-off that were far from victim-free. The one person expressing certainty in this thread, Teribus, is also the prime mover in getting us to adhere strictly to his personal versions of historical fact. Odd, then, that he can say that in the one breath yet resort to unjustified extrapolation, speculation even, in the next.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 06:02 PM

U.S. Congressional Representative Dana Rohrabacher described and tried to explain the horrors and brutality the prisoners experienced on the march:

They were beaten, and they were starved as they marched. Those who fell were bayoneted. Some of those who fell were beheaded by Japanese officers who were practicing with their samurai swords from horseback. The Japanese culture at that time reflected the view that any warrior who surrendered had no honor; thus was not to be treated like a human being. Thus they were not committing crimes against human beings.[...] The Japanese soldiers at that time [...] felt they were dealing with subhumans and animals.

That was the attitude of the Japanese military machine prior to and during WWII. It took the Hiroshima A-bomb, and finally, the Nagasaki bomb to convince them that they had lost the war. The Japanese surrendered at that point, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands, both Allied military and Japanese, military and civilian.

One can "Monday morning quarterback" until hell freezes over, but that doesn't change the facts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:40 PM

An interesting article, with a bibliography and footnotes on the information sources from the period.


 America's Reaction to the Atomic Bombings by Diana S 

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:21 PM

This is the nature of the enemy that the Allies had to deal with in the Pacific region:   CLICKY #1.

And how they treated their prisoners, both civilian and military. I had a cousin who was in the Marine Corps during WWII, stationed in the Philippines. He was captured, and was forced to go, with thousands of other military personnel and civilians, on what became known as the Bataan Death March:   CLICKY #2.   He managed to survive, but he was one of the few.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:05 PM

The complete argument runs as follows:

Even if one could accept that war goals justify any loss of life, bombings of Tokyo and Dresden type would not be acceptable, because they did not serve those goals at all. Hiroshima might qualify as a demonstration of new technology, but that could have been had equally convincing with much less damage.

As for the real goals, we can only speculate. Revenge must have been among them. I personally think that military leaders - and politicians in their vicinity - inevitably have a tendency to fuel and prolong conflicts. Military engineers and scientist may also enjoy their roles. Barbaric, indeed, and not just all-out (defensive) war.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:01 PM

Agreed, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:23 PM

Since many world leaders post as guests on Mudcat, to protect their identity, this site is a good gauge of global thinking as to the logic of targeting civilians in war.
;), of course.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:18 PM

Many posters have accepted that all out war is barbaric.

I think that is why tactical/political/pragmatic and other 'not-ethical' reasons for not targeting civilians have been sought.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:01 PM

I've always regarded the dropping of 2 bombs of such magnitude on civilians as an act of incredible barbarism, which is why I framed the question as I did.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM

"Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong."

Obviously a logical fallacy sands out in that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 11:11 AM

Wiki? 

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:00 AM

Great site, GUEST 13 Aug 15 - 8:25 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:25 AM

Source for "WW2, the good war": Global Research

Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky.

While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today RT[2] and Press TV.[3] Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

RationalWiki

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:04 AM

WW2, the good war  

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:14 AM

"Among the few real winners of WWII were businesses in Japan and West Germany."

Lessons from the USA in WW2: get in late (after supplying the combatants), for later pay back.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:36 AM

Todays enemies are tomorrows friends. And todays friends are tomorrows enemies. But if you show yourselves to be real bastards, then todays friends and todays enemies will unite against you tomorrow. This is the lesson of millennia of history.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:29 AM

Yes, all those.

Since it is on the same lines I will sneak in:

2b. Your friends may be reluctant to help you in your fight.

But it is close to Grishka's 7

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:28 AM

If people spend all their time arguing about the horrors of the past yet do not lift a finger to stop the horrors that are happening around them today are they really in the moral position to condemn the people of the past.

well said. But sadly there are those that talk and those that walk.

The walkers are not here. We are all talkers. Some more than others.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:14 AM

The GUEST of 12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM seems to be the same one as before and hit the point again. (Please choose nicknames for easier reference.)

More such reasons:

3) Even if you "win", you must be on your watch permanently (see Palestine), whereas a good peace makes for good business and wealth.

4) Your former enemy may one day be needed to fight a new common one, and may refuse.

5) Once the nationalistic mood has calmed down, your (the government's) internal opposition may blame you for ruining your country's reputation.

6) If you accuse other countries/regimes of atrocities, they can point back.

7) If you seek allies on grounds of common moral values, they will be skeptical.

Etc.

Among the few real winners of WWII were businesses in Japan and West Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM

Found myself sitting with a coffee in the peace gardens in Sheffield yesterday.