tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post1853021208456144150..comments2023-10-14T08:23:14.641-07:00Comments on The American Energy Crisis: The Moral Hazard of Hiroshima & NagasakiA Quaker in a Strange Landhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-85948227698305253832010-08-11T11:52:30.577-07:002010-08-11T11:52:30.577-07:00The problem with attempting to make war more human...The problem with attempting to make war more humane is it will also tend to make war more prevalent and war is anything but humane. What restrains Israel from nuking Tehran is the consequences of doing so- most likely the end of Israel; not some set of lofty ideals, though they do provide a handy rational for not doing so. China will not nuke Taiwan because they want the real estate; however the US is another matter entirely. Surely one of the big things tempering China’s dealings with the US is the consequences of moving beyond diplomacy. They have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to invade and brutally squash the aspirations of other peoples. However, our demonstrated willingness to fire off our entire nuclear arsenal in a homicidal rage, once sufficiently worked up, is surly not lost on them. <br />“It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it.”-Robert E. Lee. Totalitarians love to impose their will on others and the only real restraint we have is the consequences of the attempt, not some lofty ideals. I don’t see Truman as having left us in the crosshairs because I think the lofty justifications are pure BS in practice, though they certainly make you feel better when they are on your side.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354887108778074009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-10210860713191325152010-08-11T11:33:28.123-07:002010-08-11T11:33:28.123-07:00My apologies, Mr. Jeffers. I had not realized that...My apologies, Mr. Jeffers. I had not realized that your conclusions were based on emotions rather than logic. I have as much chance changing your mind on this subject as I did arguing with my wife about the cute little used Porsche she wanted. (Thank God a construction truck totaled it in a parking lot, talk about a money pit.)<br />Good luck with your book!tweellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164718561825615886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-31142133577569487452010-08-11T11:06:39.245-07:002010-08-11T11:06:39.245-07:00Greg
while I would agree with you in part, the o...Greg <br /><br />while I would agree with you in part, the only way any city (before the Korean war anyway) ever managed to not get bombed, looted, over-ran what have you was to surrender. Period. Sometimes that choice was not given either.<br /><br />You cannot fight a war with borders and off limits zones for one side and not the other.PioneerPreppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269878017447335944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-66228136909875178862010-08-11T10:34:38.277-07:002010-08-11T10:34:38.277-07:00PP:
I am not saying we were not the good guys... ...PP:<br /><br />I am not saying we were not the good guys... but I do reject the decision to nuke cities.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-4195445061057514712010-08-11T10:06:25.929-07:002010-08-11T10:06:25.929-07:00Greg
I say this with a shrug....
Just a quick se...Greg<br /><br />I say this with a shrug....<br /><br />Just a quick search showed that the subject of leaflet warning has or had some debate. <br /><br />Since I don't have your conviction about it lets assume there wasn't any direct warning within a few days prior to the drop(s).<br /><br />Nagasaki was in fact the secondary target which was bombed after Kyoto (sp) was clouded over and the crew redirected. So direct warning would be iffy. Give a city 2 days notice it would be bombed and perhaps the last few anti-aircraft or planes left could have been shuttled there. Or perhaps the warning would not have come to mean anything if the city was clouded over for days.<br /><br />There is no debate however over the Potsdam Ultimatum. It was given, the powers that be were warned what would happen and they chose the course the war took from that point on. It was fair warning in my book even if it wasn't detailed with secret weapon info.<br /><br />How many other countries would extend that kind of other option to an obviously beaten foe before going in for the last few punches?PioneerPreppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269878017447335944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-42380785060777240242010-08-11T08:20:31.335-07:002010-08-11T08:20:31.335-07:00Tweel:
On the subject of MAD.
I don't thin...Tweel:<br /><br />On the subject of MAD. <br /><br />I don't think there would be any doubt in anyone's mind that any nation possessing nuclear weapons would, in fact, use those weapons in a retaliatory strike... but your larger point is noted.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-76396585649681593052010-08-11T06:54:31.166-07:002010-08-11T06:54:31.166-07:00Mr. Jeffers, you bring up the Soviet Union and MAD...Mr. Jeffers, you bring up the Soviet Union and MAD. The A is very important there, and not only for being a vowel. The Soviets believed that we would indeed use our nuclear weapons if need be. They had proof that we would - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we had not done so, or had impeached and convicted Truman for so doing, the Assured part of MAD would have been much weaker. For fifty years we were in a metaphorical standoff with the Soviet Union, nuclear shotguns at five paces. I submit that a big part of the reason that stayed a standoff is that prior use. "You can't pull the trigger - you don't have the guts" was not something you they could say (at least then). So... really really.tweellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164718561825615886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-15772401398461660942010-08-11T04:36:11.033-07:002010-08-11T04:36:11.033-07:00Coal Guy:
What can one say?
An excellent interpr...Coal Guy:<br /><br />What can one say?<br /><br />An excellent interpretation of events and human nature.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-55994922677123509022010-08-11T04:31:42.205-07:002010-08-11T04:31:42.205-07:00Tweel:
You might make an excellent point... Imper...Tweel:<br /><br />You might make an excellent point... Imperial Japan's guilt as an pariah state is BEYOND question. Culturally, they were pathologic and absolutely needed to be pacified.<br /><br />I don't think mine is an expression of guilt. I see these bombings as morally indefensible, of questionable military value, and having put our nation at risk going forward in the nation-state chess game. I have laid out my reasoning, and you are welcome, as the thinking man you clearly are, to disagree with my conclusions. <br /><br />Dex:<br /><br />I am happy to grind swords with you. I never said I was EVER completely confident in any of my conclusions on just about anything (with the exception that I will confidently refuse to play G-d). When you are in my business you get used to being wrong and eating your words... so you try to soften them before hand.<br /><br />PP:<br /><br />There were no warnings made. Why Nagasaki? With only 3 days? Why didn't the U.S. bomb Tokyo, where the power establishment responsible for the war was? Bombing Hiroshima is like China bombing Cleveland to influence Washington. It is simply indefensible to annihilate an entire city of people. <br /><br />Japan was defeated. Truman was trying to keep the Soviets out of Japan.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-84269820158754961562010-08-11T04:19:38.046-07:002010-08-11T04:19:38.046-07:00Greg,
I think what happened in World War 2 wa...Greg,<br /><br /> I think what happened in World War 2 was that we proved to ourselves that full on war with modern technology will leave little left to live for. There seem to be little moral difference between firebombing, or blockades to starve the populace, or nuking. I can't see a moral difference between late term abortion and whacking a one day old baby's head on the corner of a table, either. Innocents die.<br /><br /> The moral dilemma never starts at the time when the ugly decision has to be made. It is always the product of a series of bad decisions. By 1945, Truman had three bad choices. Withdraw from hostilities, and let Tojo have his way in the Far East. Continue a conventional war with millions of dead soldiers on both sides and millions of Japanese starved to death, or end the war with a nuclear strike. Between then and today, Truman's decision did save millions. It cut the misery and loss of life on both sides.<br /><br /> My feeling on the issue is that the world did truly see the horror and magnitude of nuclear weapons. The bombings in Japan probably prevented nuclear exchanges later, when there was more than one side to pull the trigger. I don't count much on morality to prevent horrific actions on the world stage. It just isn't indicated by history. As sick as it is, mutually assured destruction has been the far greater deterrent.<br /><br /> While someone may justify a nuclear attack on the basis of what Truman did, it will not be the reason. That justification will be no better than any other, just more convenient. Decisions are made first, the justification always follows.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Coal GuyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-69818737779314050512010-08-10T23:41:26.254-07:002010-08-10T23:41:26.254-07:00The Japanese happily use the nuclear guilt that yo...The Japanese happily use the nuclear guilt that you and so many others push so that they do not have to look at (let alone apologize for) what they did during WWII. I was told that by a friend of the family - she was a teenager during WWII who lived in Hiroshima and walked across ground zero twice less than 48 hours after detonation. She married a serviceman, had 4 healthy children and lives in Hawaii. <br />Armageddon will not occur if another nuclear weapon is used. The shock will wear off, and people will continue in their patterns. Life goes on.<br />As retired military, I look at atomic bombs as just another weapon. Ever seen or heard of an Atomic Annie? The M65 280mm howitzer was made to fire an atom bomb, it had a 20 mile range. It was replaced with theater nuclear missiles. The US Navy has nuclear ASROCs - think guided depth charge. Then there's the bombers and ICBMs. Yes, we have nukes in all sizes, from .1kt to megaton MIRV's, and with multiple delivery options (gift-wrapping extra). They're much cleaner as well, we've learned a lot since WWII.<br />Your argument conveniently leaves out those laws of war. Remember, going after civilians is a no-no, shows that nation as a rogue state, and opens it up to more than just retaliation. FAIL.tweellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164718561825615886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-45589158922090412572010-08-10T21:39:14.546-07:002010-08-10T21:39:14.546-07:00So After wracking my brain trying to figure out wh...So After wracking my brain trying to figure out why I had thought there was warning I remembered it came from a WWII display at my state capitol some 20 years ago.<br /><br />On further digging I discovered that the Smithsonian also reported warning leaflets being dropped from their 1995 display of the subject.<br /><br />Apparently there is some debate but it appears most writers say there were in fact no leaflets dropped prior but there were some dropped after. There are also some that claim leaflets were dropped mentioning 35 target cities for bombing of which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mentioned although no mention was made of a nuclear weapon prior to the actual drops. Not that a normal Japanese citizen would have understood what nuclear meant anyway.<br /><br />The potsdam ultimatum did not mention nuclear weapons either but did at least let the powers that be know there would be significant bombing with civilian casualties.<br /><br />Although there does seem to be some question on the subject I do not feel strongly enough or knowledgeable enough about the era to champion it either way.PioneerPreppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269878017447335944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-63082520706604925862010-08-10T19:58:59.107-07:002010-08-10T19:58:59.107-07:00Having spoken with relatives of the survivors from...Having spoken with relatives of the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki I can say that neither city were warned about the impending bombing. <br /><br />A LOT of money was spent researching and developing the bomb and you can be damn sure we'd be pissed as hell if we didn't get to field test our new toys. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was an uranium based bomb whereas the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was plutonium based. The people from these two cities were merely lab rats for our new weapon.<br />~DelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-80468973760436511392010-08-10T19:20:37.384-07:002010-08-10T19:20:37.384-07:00So just so every knows ssa says they are not a pon...So just so every knows ssa says they are not a ponzi scheme.<br /><br />http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm<br /><br />See you dumbasses they are not a ponzi scheme they only act like one. DUH ;)Dextred1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10295971877800381681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-30623710514260461462010-08-10T19:14:50.376-07:002010-08-10T19:14:50.376-07:00Greg
I was under the impression (which means I co...Greg<br /><br />I was under the impression (which means I could be wrong) that the US did warn at least one of the targets ahead of time.<br /><br />Again I cannot point to a specific reference so maybe I am mis-remembering something or maybe it was a warning to the powers that be and the average Joe-nawa didnt have a clue.PioneerPreppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269878017447335944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-89895654120564592412010-08-10T18:58:27.920-07:002010-08-10T18:58:27.920-07:00not to change subject but I am
"Today, let’s...not to change subject but I am<br /><br />"Today, let’s talk about one of the world’s biggest piles of funny money — the $2.54 trillion Social Security trust fund. It matters now because Social Security revealed plans last week to tap the fund for $41 billion this year and will begin tapping it on a regular basis in less than five years.<br />This year’s cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the government will have to borrow money to redeem some of the Treasury securities in the trust fund. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money."<br /><br />The big problem<br /><br />"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."<br /><br />Your right jeffers scrap the ship, cuz it is going down, down, down. I think bur is wrong about payouts to. Why do I say this, my dad is in line for SS disability and the crazy thing is there are 800,000 others with him. Did you hear that, these are early benefits payout. I think this recession/depression (the long emergency :) is pushing a lot of people into the system and the SSA trustees are being very, well (optimistic)Dextred1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10295971877800381681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-55655281059446502772010-08-10T18:35:20.200-07:002010-08-10T18:35:20.200-07:00jeffers, never said that. That hate us for Isreal...jeffers, never said that. That hate us for Isreal and because we give them worthless peices of paper for barrels of oil. It is that simple. Come to think of it, they are kinda dumb for that trade.<br /><br />"but killing paul to influence peter is hardly defensible..."<br /> <br />I agree, my point in the whole thing is that it already happened and as such how do we deal with the world we live in.<br /><br />Not attacking jeffers, but just grinding swords. As they say it makes both sharper.Dextred1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10295971877800381681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-88458051479999530232010-08-10T18:28:22.769-07:002010-08-10T18:28:22.769-07:00PP
Where did you read that these cities were warn...PP<br /><br />Where did you read that these cities were warned?<br /><br />They were NOT warned.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-49727250072866825502010-08-10T18:22:39.153-07:002010-08-10T18:22:39.153-07:00Dex:
The Muslim world does NOT "hate us for ...Dex:<br /><br />The Muslim world does NOT "hate us for our freedoms". That is BS. The truth is, we have really, really pissed them off.<br /><br />When the oil runs out, and that's not long now, it will all be moot.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-48345186633520950552010-08-10T18:21:21.055-07:002010-08-10T18:21:21.055-07:00DaShui:
Dresden was terror bombing, pure and simp...DaShui:<br /><br />Dresden was terror bombing, pure and simple. Some how I don't think that the Dresden was a presidential or prime minister level decision and was probably overreach on the part of the field commanders, who were by that time likely near madness.<br /><br />War is hell.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-89237535869251862012010-08-10T18:18:37.537-07:002010-08-10T18:18:37.537-07:00Hey Dex:
The funny thing (or not so funny) is tha...Hey Dex:<br /><br />The funny thing (or not so funny) is that I think nuclear weapons are why we have the peace that we do... and that without them, in my opinion, there would have been much, much more industrial slaughter in the second half of the 20th century... and in some bizarre fashion the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contributed to that... but killing paul to influence peter is hardly defensible...<br /><br />Guys, I am just airing out some of my thoughts after doing my research... these things happened before our lives began... nothing to be done now... apologies are unnecessary and irrelevant...<br /><br />One things is for absolute sure... we won't know the truth of who did what and why the NEXT time a nuclear bomb goes off in a city... but that will absolutely be the end of everything - international trade, the financial system, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking... POOF!!! Gone.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-78693991199426670882010-08-10T18:12:29.970-07:002010-08-10T18:12:29.970-07:00when talking about blowback I see it more as resul...when talking about blowback I see it more as resulting in a philosophy of striking back at perceived aggressor, agitator etc. The Muslim world looks at us as the Great Satan or whatever and it matters not how they harm us, just that they inflict maximum damage.Dextred1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10295971877800381681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-85126064231112904292010-08-10T18:02:07.655-07:002010-08-10T18:02:07.655-07:00I understand your contempt of the weapon, but corr...I understand your contempt of the weapon, but correlation is not causation. It would be impossible to prove or show one way or the other whether this leads to a more likely nuclear scenario. I even agree partly with the idea of blowback. I would argue the exact opposite in this case though considering the weapons have not been used again in warfare; the Russians high tailed it out of Cuba when they saw that young president was not going to be intimidated and knew we had already used the weapon. More and more nations have developed the weapons and they will one day be used, it is just inevitable. But to me this is the where your case has a weakness. All governments are made up of compacts that delineate some duties and responsibilities based on the vote of the people or in the case of Japan lineage; in this case it is the most solemn duty of government which they are called to use “force”. You might not like it and I might not like it, but in the world we live in the men in governments make the decisions. The founders saw this and gave the president great deference in his ability to wage war.<br />The problem in my view is not that the government did this or that, but that men are failed creatures. We are fallen and hence will usually never make choice that is perfect because all choices have consequences. As you say sometimes life is just not fair. I find it hard to believe that most radical Islamic sects would not use a nuke the second they get it, they will and we will probably see this in the not too distant future. This will not be the result of us using it, but of it being a really good option for blowing away the interior of a major city. <br />Nobody is for killing little girls or boys, or women, or young men, or old women, or old men. At least rational people. It is a rhetorical question.Dextred1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10295971877800381681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-19403189785763454062010-08-10T17:53:13.032-07:002010-08-10T17:53:13.032-07:00I think it fair to point out that in reality every...I think it fair to point out that in reality every nuclear armed nation-state on the planet seems to agree with me... they have been involved in a number of conflicts in which lives where lost... and NONE of them decided to drop a nuclear bomb on a city.A Quaker in a Strange Landhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15425198389944137571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99704500378481622.post-5303299319516255152010-08-10T17:48:10.786-07:002010-08-10T17:48:10.786-07:00Not trying to hurt your feelings :)
What I am say...Not trying to hurt your feelings :)<br /><br />What I am saying is that you cannot compare China first striking Taiwan or even Israel hitting Iran to the WWII bombs.<br /><br />The Israel/Iran thing maybe close if Iran continues attacking Israel but since it's all small and second party it's iffy.<br /><br />Even your child playing example was kinda lefty (Its for the children ya know) and makes one forget that those "citizens" were warned and only a die hard believer (IE the will of war) would have left their children there to play.PioneerPreppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09269878017447335944noreply@blogger.com