 sj |
||
|
||
BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:24 AM Now when your drones kill their civilians it brings their suicide bombers and gunmen who don't expect to survive down on your civilians |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:46 AM I refer you to the following two passages: 1: Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford [lecturing on "The Ethics of Bombing"]: " ... So therefore, it is not a question of ethics at all! War is not the opposite of peace, nor is it a corollary of it! War is a complete breakdown in civilization, so it shouldn't have "ethics" thrust upon it. Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable! The means of death and destruction are immaterial, war was always war, the only difference today is the scale of it! So, when this war is finally over, the world should accept that there is no limit; there are no "Hague Rules of Combat" anymore! The worse war is, the more savage it becomes! When people understand this, and stop trying to limit it, then perhaps, we shall achieve lasting peace!" 2: International law did not protect civilians from bombardment from the sea, the ground, or the air: The 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare was the first authoritative attempt to clarify and formulate a comprehensive code of conduct, but they were never adopted in legally binding terms. Growing awareness of the military potential of aircraft throughout the 1920s and 1930s ultimately proved too serious an obstacle to reaching an agreement. One of the main stumbling blocks was the inability to establish an acceptable definition of a legitimate military target under the new conditions of total war between industrialised states. Air Marshal Sir Robert Saundby summed up this conundrum nicely when he wrote: "It is generally agreed, for example, that the man who loads or fires a field-gun is a military target. So is the gun itself, and the ammunition dump which supplies it. So is the truck-driver who transports ammunition from the base to the dump. So -- in the last two World Wars -- was the man who transported weapons, ammunition, raw materials, etc., by sea. But are the weapons and war-like stores on their way from the factories to the bases, and the men who transport them, not also military targets? And what about weapons under construction in the factories, and the men who make them? Are they not also military targets? And if they are not, where do you draw the line? If they are military targets, are not the industrial areas and the services -- gas, electricity -- that keep industry going, also military targets? Or is it permissible to starve these civilian workers by blockade, or shell them if you can get at them, but not to bomb them from the air? This is surely a `reductio ad absurdum'." Factories making armaments and the transport bringing them to the battlefronts naturally were included in the category of legitimate targets once the means of attacking them were available. Consequently those civilians in them or dangerously close to them might just have to be equated with civilians in legitimately attacked places. Moreover, precedent was on the side of the air planners. Naval bombardment of ports and towns was an accepted act of war. It was even codified in Article 2 of the Convention on Naval Bombardment, signed at The Hague in 1907. Article 2 stipulated that a naval commander who used his ships' guns to destroy military objectives in an undefended port or town `incur[red] no responsibility for any unavoidable damage which may be caused by a bombardment under such circumstances'. The advent of air power merely increased the opportunity of reaching and destroying such targets. As to the points raised: "why pretend it it is not so for all sides" Who is pretending that it is the same for all sides? Examples please. "sign agreements limiting war time activities, and talk "the high ground" to other countries about killing civilians, when most countries (including your own) are prepared to use whatever advantage they possess in wartime?" Agreements have in the past been signed and honoured - oddly enough the one that springs foremost to mind concerns chemical and biological agents. Principle reason they were not used in the Second World War was because Hitler had actually faced gas attacks during the First World War. Churchill on the otherhand hadn't and was quite prepared to use them if necessary. As to the killing civilians bit - recent examples - Afghanistan ever hear of the exercise of "courageous restraint" where if in contact with the enemy there was any danger of causing civilian casualties action was to be broken off? Of course in a "all-out" wartime scenario such restraint would be difficult if not impossible to implement. "Why not just be honest and admit that any target, military or civilian, will be directly or indirectly targeted in any conflict, with whatever tool exists to serve a "wartime interest" Attaboy GUEST you are now getting towards what the Wing Commander above stated as being the reality. "All this talk about, " it will never happen again", rings hollow under that scenario-I find it strange that people repeat it, over and over without thinking, "of course it will happen again, if there is a wartine advantage". Of course it will happen again GUEST and nobody I know has ever thought any different. And remember GUEST should YOU ever become involved in any "all-out" war there is only one thing that is important - YOU must WIN IT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:48 AM Steve Shaw - Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:06 PM Was every German in Germany in those pictures?" Of course not Stevie, but there again where did I state that " every German in Germany" WAS in those pictures. Attention to detail Shaw, attention to detail. Try harder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 09:17 AM "Of course it will happen again GUEST and nobody I know has ever thought any different." Well, no need of polling "those you know", you realky dont really have to look very far here to see it-it's just a few posts down. Lol 10 Aug 15 - 01:29 PM, Bill D "What is important is that we learn that humans should NEVER resort to such measures again............" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 10:00 AM Missed this one earlier from Mr Red " Mr Red - 11 Aug 15 - 04:48 AM the BBC documentary last night on the "bomb" clearly stated the view that the Hiroshima bomb was dropped to demonstrate the fire power of the Allies because the war had no sight of any conclusion and was not going well for the Allies." It is wonderful to see clearly demonstrated what a factual grip those who make documentaries for the BBC have on reality. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 - AUGUST 1945 FFS - the end of the war was in sight albeit early-to-mid summer 1946 and things could not have been going any better for the allies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 12 Aug 15 - 10:48 AM Good point, GUEST 12 Aug 15 - 08:20 AM. Militarists keep claiming that acts of terror against civilians will cause their armies to surrender, but all experience tells us that the opposite will happen: the morale on both sides is boosted. Thus, apart from the tactics mentioned by that GUEST, a possible rationale of terrorism is to fuel and prolong the conflict. Oftentimes military leaders are afraid of peace, in which their importance is bound to diminish. Japanese leaders surrendered because they realized that they had no chance to win, or even to achieve an honorable peace. Deaths of civilians were rather seen as an incentive to continue fighting. Methods to speed up one's enemy's surrender and save lives do exist, but they are usually scorned by generals, because diplomats and real propaganda specialists must play the leading role, who must strive to understand the enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 11:30 AM Ehmmmm Grishka "Japanese leaders surrendered because they realized that they had no chance to win, or even to achieve an honorable peace." Japanese leaders surrendered because after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki the Emperor ordered them to surrender and seek peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 12 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM "The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 - AUGUST 1945 FFS - the end of the war was in sight albeit early-to-mid summer 1946 and things could not have been going any better for the allies." Any idea what the death toll would have been after another six to eight months bearing in mind that both sides would have sustained casualties? I doubt that it would have been much less,probably more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM Two more ethics-free reasons for not targeting civilians: 1a. You may lose the war and end up an international court 1b. You may get found out by human rights groups and end up in one of your own courts. 2. Your enemy's enemies may not want to be your friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:35 PM Any idea what the death toll would have been after another six to eight months bearing in mind that both sides would have sustained casualties? No, I don't have any idea - and neither do you. So stop guessing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:07 PM "The practical question is this: "Is it immoral to kill civilians in war?" It is an issue of growing importance in the last 100 years because a century ago most people killed in wars were professionals. This has changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians .By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians." From the BBC: Whom can you fight? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM There were estimates at the time, and they were high. For both sides. Using the bomb quite probably saved more Japanese lives than it took, and most certainly lives of the Allied forces. Considering the "no surrender" policy of the Japanese, an invasion of Japan would have cost many lives on both sides--including many Japanese noncombatants (civilians). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:48 PM Greg, The question was directed to Teribus who posted the statement in quotes in a previous post. Like you I have no idea of the likely numbers and neither does he. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:24 PM Sorry, Derrick- got twisted round, which isn't difficult after reading Terribulous' usual stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Joe_F Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:11 PM It is hard to guess how important the nuclear attacks were in influencing the decision of the Japanese leaders -- not altogether rational, and not all in agreement -- to surrender. A lot else was going on at the same time: the devastation of other cities, particularly Tokyo, by "conventional" bombing; the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan; and the general course of the war, which must have made it clear to any sane Japanese that it was lost. On the one hand, the Emperor's surrender speech made explicit reference to "a new and cruel weapon", and various military men, interviewed afterward, said it had been important. On the other hand, the Supreme Council did not bother to meet until 3 days after the Hiroshima attack, when it received the news of the USSR's invasion of Manchuria. News of Nagasaki arrived during the meeting and was barely taken notice of. My guess is that the nuclear attacks were helpful in giving the Japanese an opportunity to save face, but that the prospect of a Soviet invasion and a partition of the country (a la Germany) was the main consideration for the surrender itself. As to the motives on our side, one could go on & on. |
|
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. |
|
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: 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,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: 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 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 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:11 AM Wiki? |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:01 PM Agreed, Jim. |
|
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: 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 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:25 PM You need to answer that, Don. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.Don Firth |
|
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: 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 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 ? |