Bin Laden And Hiroshima

Tahmed San #112, {``and one mole DNA fol wold stlategy thinkel. ``}

One mole DNA. zat is belly belly funny. HA HA HA.

BTW, In my humbre opiniyon, many peepur on zis boald not making too much sense. They act rike they are tleating constipation wiz acupuntul.


New Sareemu San :)

#117 not fair..history of native american conquest and hispania conquest are not written to show the conquerors in moral nice light.

Re: # 114 Ajeet

``Once you accept that, then the devastation caused is only a matter of degree. Whether you are killed by a knife, a bullet, a firearm or an atom bomb, you are dead and what killed you becomes immaterial.``

As it is, in a nuclear war, the dead are luckier than the survivors. They and their future generations continue to suffer.

Also there has to be an outer limit even to barbarism. You can`t possibly poison rivers with radioactive material and stuff of that kind. There has to be an ethics of war too! Reasons like this led to banning of chemical weapons. An evolved human race will look upon nuclear war in the same terms as desecration of holy books and holy places: sheer blasphemy.

sattr2,

Well said!

tahmed32,

You can do better than that. The point was that if Japan or Germany had indeed won the war, it is impossible to tell how history would have turned out. Yes, most likely short term atrocities...but then the Brits and French (Algeria anyone?) were hardly sweethearts.

Japan got nuked `cause those damn yellow skins didn`t know their place. That sentiment perhaps best reflects the views of the Americans during the war, and is what ultimately drives contemporary apologia on the matter.

sattar #115 Romair is as capable as you are of reading english, and does not need your help in understanding what I have written. And kindly dont misrepresent my views: since what I am pointing to is what actually happened in World War II and in the US Civil War, not saying it is OK to kill children.

Romair,

In summary, tahmed sahib is suggesting that … if a man claims to be superior and is bent upon subjugating others … and killing some in process … it is alright to kill his children to show him he remains vulnerable. Moral ambivalence in such a crisis needs due consideration. It is far from being an open-and-shut case in my view.

The point that needs to be appreciated is that tens of thousands of people were killed so that their leaders could be taught a lesson. Incidentally, this mode of operation is strikingly similar to how terrorists function. Validating such scenarios without entertaining doubt is a sign of brash, dangerous thinking.

Knowing facts is one thing. Understanding how facts fit together is a different issue. Drawing overly simplistic conclusions without entertaining doubt is an intellectual liability. It seems google has its limitations … and an internet connection is no substitute for sanity and humility.

This discussion on whether the allies were evil because they atom bombed the civilians makes an interesting reading. War by it very nature is evil. There is no such thing as nice war or kind war. Once you accept that, then the devastation caused is only a matter of degree. Whether you are killed by a knife, a bullet, a firearm or an atom bomb, you are dead and what killed you becomes immaterial.

Also wars can not be fought with preset rules or moral values. When ever it has been tried in history, the people who fought with rules of war, came out second best when confronted with an enemy who did not follow the same rules. That is one of the reasons why once mighty empires crumble in front of barbarian hordes. They develop civilisation, culture and moral values. The powerful Indian kings with large armies, but with their sunup to sundown soldier had no chance against the barbaric Muslim adventurers. Wars can not be won if the general is squeamish or can not decide whether the decision is moral or otherwise. All the great general were ruthless in war. The magnanimity if any came after the enemy had been crushed.

anil #109 I read your post. There are many things I agree with and many I disagree with in what you write. But I do appreciate your contributions towards more informed, civilized chowk discussions.

Having said this, I would add that (like virtually every Indian I have discussed this on chowk), you do seem to have a blind spot wrt the Indian vs Pakistan nuclear program. This blind spot is the fact that whereas the nuclear program for Pakistan had a clear and practical objective (namely, neutralization of India`s conventional military advantage), for India this has not been the case. As such, India`s nuclear program has essentially been self-defeating and therefore valueless at any price - while Pakistan`s program has proven invaluable in assuring it`s national defence, as in 2003.

Anyway, not to start a chowk war on this, but something you may wish to reflect upon.

honolable Samulai Sareemu San #107 So solly you armost rost your lice and pheesh upon healing about how all Pakistani pippels have DNA for philosphu and anothel DNA fol doctolu and and anothel DNA fol blain sulgeon and one mole DNA fol wold stlategy thinkel.

I see you speaku tulkish-japanese: ``Honto ne anata wa tahen ureshi desu. Gomen kudasai dake do nihon jin wa warui janai desu ne. Ano Amerika jin wa Hiroshima de boom boom atomu bomba deshta. Sore wa tahen warui deshuta. `` Empelol HiloHito velly velly ploud of you. Haiiiii !!!

Romair #106 Sorry for mistaking your presentation of al Qaeda`s views as being your own views. It wasnt very clear from your presentation whether or not you disagreed with those views. So, unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you disagree with them.

Anyway, on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the general destruction of german/japanese cities that I referred to, what I was presenting was not an opinion but a well-recognized fact: namely, that the japanese and germans lost their appetite for playing the ``superior race`` and world domination as a result of the havoc caused on their cities in WWII. Just as the southerners in the US lost their appetite for seceding from the union in order to lord it over black slaves after the havoc caused on them by the Civil War. You dont hear a peep fro anyone in the US about secession after the Civil War: and the entire population of the US is better off as a result. You dont hear a peep from the Japanese or Germans about the ``master race``: and the entire population of the World is better off as a result. That is all I am saying. Simple facts. Do you disagree with this?

#109 by anil on August 9, 2005 1:59pm PT



BTW, I do not believe Kashmir will be merged into one or partitioned further. I do not believe, other than simple adjustments, LOC will change much.


Uh-oh...Capt Clueless will find that hard to swallow...accepting reality doesn`t come easy for most pakis...

bre prepared for a lecture on what`s the right and moral thing to do - India handing over Kashmir to Pakiland on a platter - including a honorable mention of his kashmiri heritage and his house in srinagar....

Romair (#95 & 97):

You had asked me if I had studied nuclear doctrine. My answer was that the prof. who taught negotiations was involved in negotiations and used to mention anecdotes. I would doubt it to be called a study. However, nuclear force can unleash unprecedented changes in society, something that I constantly study. I became interested in impact of nuclearization and containment. I also met interesting persons in my life time. Another one I can mention is Jim Guzzy, the board member of INTEL, and a VC. In late 50s and early 60s he was involved from the U.S. side to first convince Nehru to get India nuclear to counter China, and later against India`s nuclear program. Interesting, isn`t it. Jim had mentioned that even the crash of the plane carrying Homi J. Bhabha was most likely to be sabotaged. Jim knew Homi J. Bhabha personally as the brilliant physicist and mathematician. He was conivnced and convinced the U.S. administrations then that India has such a talent that it can choose when to go nuclear, but thought it was immature of Nehru to turn down the offer then. Now once again the U.S. is ready to bring India into nuclear club, almost 50 years later.

All points expressed in exchange are my views formed over the years on this subject. My concusions on ``drivers`` or ``motivation`` to use nuclear force are different than yours.

Others exchanges in this board on nuclear attack on Japan, quote contemporary U.S. leaders, including Ike etc. Their statement confirm that the U.S. would have attacked weaker Japan with Nuclear weapon. Openly whatever reason may be given, but privately, the resolve is always to deliver superior response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, because it was on the U.S. soil. The similar reasons I believe the West will relentlessly pursue Al-Qaeda, the attack was on the U.S. soil. More attacks on the U.S. soil will only multiply the resolve not lessened it. I believe in one corollary that if Pearl Harbor had not happened, then probably Japanese would not have been interned. Just as I believe if 9/11 had not happened, Gitmo would not have happened.

You acknowledge that the U.S. may have gone into Iraq with a long term presence in mind, but now has different mind. I gave you my view from the economic standpoint that the West has the warewithall to stay there, provided internal dissent and pressures do not become unmanageable. However, it must find others to bid for the west. In WWI and WWII, India/Pakistan and commonwealth soldiers provided a lot of cannon fodder. Who will be the cannon fodder in this war.

For this reason that who is doing the bidding for the west, the U.S. most visibly, the U.K. less visibly and others in their own way will continue to provide unflinching support to Israel. While try to change the war to minimize human losses, until the ``turning point`` that I mentioned is achieved.

Your earlier points on Iraq were economic $80 Billion annual cost etc. I tried to present a bigger picture to show that it is a sound investment for the the economies to complete the transitions and maintain world dominence.

For political evolution of middle east, I have also put forward Iran + Shia Iraq + Cost of the ware paid or absorbed, as the alternate model of governance. It would be a better option and a better face of ``political`` Islam as an alternative. The West might find more acceptable. All during Iraq war, EU was engaged with Iran, and continue to do so.

Tri-lateral Commission, and not the lobby group, influence the U.S. policy to a greater extent. You must have read about Tri-lateral Commission. Post WWII, foreign policy of the U.S. has changed very little. It is purely driven to protect the U.S. interests wherever they are from whoever is the threat. Even the strategies are similar, encirclement of the communist countries to prevent them access oil fields of the middle east. Now it is defending the oil fields from Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore, I feel that you are overplaying the role of lobbies. Right wing U.S. and Islamic radicals have cooperated in the past (Iran Contra affair, OBL-Pakistan-Taleban in Afganistan). They can become bedfellows again.

In democracy, lobbyists play an very important role to influence legislators. They are hired hand cowboys. Their role is similar to regional parties in India to influence decisions in their clients favor. Indian regional and other parties have politicians and their operatives who take money and other favors too to deliver results.

In the U.S., minions and coporations use lobbyist to obtain favors. Lawyers eager to make money run the lobbies. I doubt, Blair, Chirac and Schroeder use them to influence decisions in their favor. They have the ability to take business elsewhere, much like when China needed MVP, and the opposition was from the mid-west politicians, China gave huge order to McDonnell and created jobs in mid-west. Politicians eager to get vote, voted. Microsoft played the similar trick, donated $1M worth of Microsoft products to libraries in the constituencies to ensure old anti-trust ruling against them was overruled. Clearly this shows many many ways to buy influence in Washington DC. The U.S. is a system, and not merely a nation-state any longer. Misssissippi is more different than Silicon Valley than say Pakistan and Iran.

You had brought out the issue of N. Koreas nuclear weapon to prove the point that it is for that reason no one has attacked it. Only then I mentioned about my discussions, while huge amount of hot Sake and rice wine was being cosumed with a fantastic and visionary Korean.

Russians put ``Missile on Ant`s Back`` ahead and in the process destroyed themeselves. Geo-politics of South Asia is such, that India does not run this risk, but Pakistan does. This is one point that I did not touch but have now stated.

It was very interesting for me to read in Dawn, Shahid Burki putting forward trade with India and Pakistan with both Kashmirs involved. Something I have been advocating for quite sometime. I even mentioned to you for your IT projects too.

Such inevitable things, and non-political non-religious thing like adopting a village in Kashmir etc. excite me.

BTW, I do not believe Kashmir will be merged into one or partitioned further. I do not believe, other than simple adjustments, LOC will change much. It certainly will become very soft - like India Nepal border, and so that people, and goods will move freely.

Devolution of power in India, from center to state is already real, and will allow for Indian Kashmir to get more power, access to finance, and access to market.

Political freedom will remain at the mercy of the violence in Kashmir.

India will have to find a way to respect Indian Kashmiris, and rely on Kashmiriyat that my anscesstors knew, enjoyed and talked about. So that everyone who wants to call himself / herself kashmiri can be just as proud.

I have a clear view on terrorism. I have aligned my interests where I live and want to live and carry out business, and make friends accordingly.

Anil

I have reservations about use of atomic bombs against Japan. My reservations are based more on general principles since I lack intimate knowledge of political and war-related realities of the era.

Some facets …

Many facets of this issue deserve careful consideration. Some of the obvious ones seem to be …

- How close was Japan to surrendering anyway … and at what cost to the Allied forces? Did Japan stand a chance of winning if war had continued along conventional lines?

- It seems that by dropping bombs, the US was also showboating to the Soviets. This arguably would have been an added benefit of dropping the bomb. But was it worth it? Also, did it scare others, or did this send countries in frenzy of acquiring nuclear weapons?

- If dropping the bombs quickly ended the war, did it save thousands of Jews in concentration camps? If yes, then this weighs in favor of dropping the bombs (or at least one bomb). But if the cost involved thousand of Japanese lives ... what calculus is the right one for making such decisions?

- What would be the long term affect of dropping the bombs? I have a feeling that Japanese people, as a nation, will not easily forget the bomb incidents. They are likely to carry nuclear scars for time to come.

Rise and fall of nations

As nations rise and fall over time, one can make the case that some day, in future, Japan may very well become a military giant. And that Japan very well may be involved in a nuclear standoff against USA. Owing to deep psychological scars of the past, decision by Japanese political powers to drop a nuclear bomb on the USA would face far fewer barriers … versus dropping the atomic bomb on another country. This saga may be far from over and will probably unfold over time, in the future.

Slippery slope …

Fundamentally, I am unable to reconcile myself with killing civilians … ordinary folks … women, children, men … plain, ordinary folks …. to force into subjugation their political leaders. Proponents of bomb use are on a slippery slope with their logic, as this reasoning is strikingly similar to that employed in suicide bombers and terrorists. Military conflicts should be handled militarily … without involving the innocents.

Tahmed’s reasoning seems to suggest that if US had not bombed Japan, we’d all be working as slaves for the Japanese emperor. Such sweeping, blanket views dangerously oversimplify the issue. However, expecting Sahib to present a well thought out idea in a reasonable manner … without oversimplifying the issue by making sweeping statements … is a bit like expecting an elephant to lay an egg.

To remain on the right side … at all costs

I think that in such conflicts, it is extremely important to remain … always … on the right side of the issue. It is better to take two injuries, than to wrongfully inflict even one injury. This is what Quran teaches me and this is what the dear Prophet (pbuh) practiced. This approach, over time, goes much further in wining hearts after the war is won.

Position taken by Eisenhower and others in higher political echelons … who apparently did not want atomic bomb used against Japan … gives me hope. If Allied forces had continued to bravely fight the war to subdue Japan, it would have taught a valuable lesson to the Japanese: that despite having the atomic bomb, the Allied valued Japanese lives just as much … and sacrificed their own to win the war. Over time, I think Japanese would have come around to appreciating these realities and would`ve been truly grateful to the Americans, without much mixed feelings.

#101, Tahmed San, {``All Pakistani pippur is arso doctoru and philosophu and wold stlategy thinkel. You got question, Pakistani pippur have answel to evelything``}

Velly Fonny, Tahmed San. I armos rost arr my rice and phish when I bulst out raughing. Pakistani pippur hab answel to evelysing.

Honto ne anata wa tahen ureshi desu. Gomen kudasai dake do nihon jin wa warui janai desu ne. Ano Amerika jin wa Hiroshima de boom boom atomu bomba deshta. Sore wa tahen warui deshuta.

Domo arigato,
Sarimu

tahmad #102: ``So, according to you, the US has attacked 21 countries after WWII. And, according to you, Al Qaeda will teach the US a lesson. ``

You are twisting my words...........

I am simply extrapolating your logic, and asking you whether you truly believe in your logic as a matter of international principle, or if you are just bending over backwards to justify the dropping of nuclear bombs i.e. ``The medicine was bitter indeed for the residents of hiroshima and nagasaki - but it cured them and their entire nation of this Arrogantitis (caused by a bacteria known as Arrogance).``

As I said, your comments sound like the campaign slogan of Al-Qaeda............Do you think it is justifiable for one group to nuke another, if it feels it needs to cure, ``them and their entire nation of this Arrogantitis``

If everyone started using your logic, there would be nuclear weapons going off every where, because everyone feels that someone needs to be cured of Arrogantitis...........

Soulat,

Interesting response! I find it difficult to swallow the posturing of the generals. They seemed to have no problems with fire bombing cities...perhaps it was the dramatic nature of the blasts and the fact that the bombings had no specific military purpose what so ever. But hundreads of thousands of civilians had perished well before the nuclear blasts....