Bin Laden And Hiroshima

vertex #103 you write `` if the Americans had won,``

I have great news for you. the Americans did win WWII.

you write ``Americans did not fight that war on behalf of some villagers in India. ``

I never said they did. Why should they?? Its just that the villagers in India (which would have included you and me) benefitted from the fact that the Americans beat the Japanese in WWII and thus ended their plans to turn the ``inferior races`` of Asia (which would have included you and me) into slaves.

Welcome to reality, my friend.

tahmed32,

``Agreed. If the Japanese had won, you would have either not been born (because your elders would have been exterminated by the Japanese), or else would be slaving away as in illiterate villager for the glory of the Japanese god-King HiroHito.``

By that logic, if the Americans had won, I`d be just another second class negro doing either menial work, or perhaps would never have been born because the American army decided to hand out small-pox ridden blankets to my village. Oh wait...didn`t happen, did it?

It`s easy to look back on history, but difficult to project forward from it.

Americans did not fight that war on behalf of some villagers in India. Get that notion out of your head. They fought because the Japanese had the audacity to challenge them. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, the Americans would have been content to see Asia enslaved to the Japanese. So spare me your pointless hypotheticals and moralizing.

Romair #98 So, according to you, the US has attacked 21 countries after WWII. And, according to you, Al Qaeda will teach the US a lesson.

My! my! What did they mix with your coffee this morning??

Please be serious if you want to have a serious discussion.

#99 Salim San. Haiii !! You speak wolds of wisdom. Pakistani pippur is indeed white lace - except for coroll as you say. ha! ha! (that velly funny).

All Pakistani pippur is arso doctoru and philosophu and wold stlategy thinkel. You got question, Pakistani pippur have answel to evelything!!

Rong Rive Empelol HiloHito!! Haiii !!

#95 by Romair on August 9, 2005 8:32am PT


- NRA


Let`s plat the game by your rules....You say Pakiland is fine because the Islamist haven`t won a lot of seats(even that`s not true now)...

Well...the NRA hasn`t won a single seat in congress ever....So going by the logic you apply for the Islamists in Pakiland, the NRA is a bunch of insignificants in fairfax county whining about something people don`t care about....

#87, Tahmed San, {``Pakistani pipple say but japanese pipple not white lace. OK to killu pipple if not white lace.``}

Tahen arigato gozai masu for your honolabre massagu. Pakistani peepur not learize zat zey are zemserbes armost white except for corrol.
Sank you bery mach.
Sarim.

tahmad #96: ``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). From a nation destined to rule the ``inferior races`` of Asia, the Japanese have learnt the virtues of peace.``

This could be the campaign slogan for Al-Qaeda...........

Any country that is a superpower of its era, carries out the most killings in the world. Germany and Japan were the superpowers of their era. After which USSR and USA became the superpowers. Now only USA is the superpower...........

If we follow your phiolsophy, then someone should set-off a nuke in the USA. Infact two. Because since WWII, far more individuals in the world have been killed by a bullet made by the USA, and fired by an American, than by one from any other country.

As the article indicates, the USA has attacked 21 countries since WW II. The total amount of armament it dropped on Vietnam alone, was more than the combined tonnage of bombs dropped by all the Allied forces combined in WW II!! Do keep in mind that one B-52 or B-1 carries massivley more firepower than B-29s or Japanes Zero aircraft......

In every decade, since WWII, except 80s (when the Soviets killed 1 million people in Afghanistan), the USA has killed more people in other countries, than any other country. No one else even comes close..........

So do you believe in your theories as a matter of principle, independent of any country you may be a part of. Or are you trying to bend over backwards and in all directions, to justify any foreign policy of the USA...................inlcuding dropping nuclear weapons directly on civilian populations..........

Anil #88: ``It is not the issue of advance warfare or not. All simulation games that I know were played. And there were quite a few. All led to one conclusion that the residual left over. The residula leftover was more devastating for the West than for the Soviets. .``

I think we pretty much agree on this..........Which is why I said that the USA would not have attacked any country, if the country had nukes...........

At the time of the fall of the USSR, the USSR had around 35,000 nuclear warheads. The USA had around 12,000. These could be launched from the land (long range and intermediate missiles), sea (SLBMs) and air (strategic bombers).

Today, the USA has 7000 nuclear warheads actively deployed. And 3000 in reserve. Russia has reduced its numbers significantly from 36000. But still has over 10,000.

There is no known system to mankind that can take out nuclear missiles. Hence a first-strike cannot be countered. It can only be detered. Suppose USSR launched all 35,000 warheads at Europe and USA. Or USA launched all 12,000 at USSR. What would be left?

Nothing would be left. Except those hiding in nuclear shelters, or perhaps (and a big perhaps) in Tora Bora......That would be the residual, as I think you are pointing out also......This is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), in its purest form...........

So, if Japan had the ability to nuke San Francisco or New York, I seriously doubt Nagasaki or Hiroshima would have been nuked............

soulat #93 It is indeed true that many US generals had reservations about using the nuclear bomb. 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). From a nation destined to rule the ``inferior races`` of Asia, the Japanese have learnt the virtues of peace. Their emperor, to save his own sweet skin (after millions of people had been killed in his name) switched from being the descendant a warrior-king to a mild-mannered gardener. Same for the Germans.

Another US general from another time (Sherman) administered the same medicine to another community suffering from Arrogantitis - the Southerners, who (like the Japanese and Germans later on) felt that the ``inferior races`` were meant to be their slaves. Sherman then undertook his famous ``March to the Sea`` in 1864, devastating everything in his path. For decades after that, the Southerners hated his name. And yet - he was the good doctor who cured them of their arrogance. And the blood of the US soldiers in the Civil War took the US a giant step closer to its ideals of equality of all men.

Just as the sacrifices of the allied soldiers to the world a giant step closer to the ideals of the equality of man. By putting an end to the japanese and german love for war by giving them a taste of their own medicine in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden and other german and japanese cities.

Anil #88: Interesting discussions. I did a course in the USA, during the Afghan war. It involved a six month course, in their nuclear doctrine, as well. Most of all, it allowed me to see the USA military from the inside. I have a high opinion of the character and professionalism of the US military. Though I find their exposure and understanding of the world, quite limited. I regularly get emails from my friends, who are currently involved in US conflicts......

1. Regarding Korea, China etc., I really don`t know much. And I doubt I will have the chance to meet someone like Dr. Wan Hee Kim. So I will take your word for it, since I cannot put up much of an argument there.........

2. The rest I do have some knowledge of........

- I think you are greatly overestimating the long-term strategic planning of the USA. US politics, unlike US business and US academia and research or even US military, is not led by genuises. Moreover, it is very vulnerable to pressure groups and lobbyists. Due to which, the best long term decisions, for the USA, are generally over-ruled in favor of the best long-term decisions for pressure groups.

The three most powerful pressure groups in US domestic politics, as ranked by media surveys, are

- Religious Right
- NRA
- American Isreali Political Action Committee

All three of these groups, at least in my opinion, are detrimental to the long-term interests of the USA. Since these groups` interests are specifically catered to their own narrow funders, and not to the broader interest of the American population. However, they have so much influence in US politics that no govt. (specifically Republican) can ever make a decision, without taking thier views into account.

For example, I am quite sure the US leadership is quite aware that it losing far too much in fighting the long-term wars of Israel. The USA, itself, infact, has no kind of conflict with oil-rich Arab states. It should have a mutually beneficial relationship with Arab states. However, it cannot make any move due to the political influence of AIPAC etc. The USA would gain tremendously, if Israel agreed to the 67 borders. Yet it won`t agree, much to the loss of the USA......

Similarly, no US President can do anything to control the gun lobby.............And no Republican candidate can win the party nomination without the support of the Relgious Right...........

These, and similar pressure groups, need to be considered when evaluating US foreign policy. SALT treaties are handled by professional bearecrats and academicians. However, overall foreign policy is in the control of pressure groups. The US invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with these pressure groups. The neo-cons, under Dick Cheney, are heavily pro-Israel. Some actually worked for Israeli politicians. They are the ones, who planned out this whole strategy. 9/11 turned out to be the catalyst they were looking for. All of this is well-documented in papers, they, themselves authored. It is not a coincidence that the only country in the world, whose popualation still supports the Iraq War is Israel (even US population is against it now).......

There is only one way the USA can be attacked and harmed, ``in its backyard.`` And that is through a terrorist nuclear attack. That is it. Everything else is media hype, since all other terrorist attack will only carry out minor damage in comparison to other areas that are far more dangerous. 30,000 people die annually, in the USA, due to gun-related violence. This is 6 times as many as during the complete WTC/Pentagon attack by OBL. 17,000 people die annually in the USA, due to drunk driving. Hence, I have far more chance of getting killed in a gun gang-war or due to drunk driving, if I enter the USA, then in a terrorist attack. Yet you wouldn`t know that by seeing the media...........Even if one airliner explodes monthly in the USA, the dangers are less than gang wars and drunk driving.........

So the only thing the USA needs to consider is a nuclear terrorist attack; statistically speaking. Is the USA safer, becasue of Iraq, against a nuclear attack. The answer is an obvious No. It has become far more vulnerable. This is where the theory of, ``Keeping terrorist in Iraq, so they don`t attack Kansas`` fails. Due to the following reasons:

- Al-Qaeda has been handed a new base to operate from, in Iraq, due to the Iraq War
- There is far more hatred for the USA, in the Muslim world, due to Iraq
- Iraq has a very pro-Iran govt. (and it will be there for the long term)
- The USA does not have the ability or political will to threaten Iran, since it has all been exhausted on Iraq. Due to which Iran is openly going ahead with nukes

Neither Britain, nor the USA is going to keep permanent soldiers in Iraq. They cannot. Their own populations are agaisnt it. And the Iraqis will eventually want them out. Keeping long-term military establishment there may have been the original plan. But that plan is now down the drain...........

30 years ago, the USA had complete control of the world`s oil resources through Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Now it has lost control of Iran and Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the only one left. It is the key state for the USA. Which is why its leaders have received the more visits to Bush`s Crawford Ranch, then any other country in the world......However, Saudi Arabia is in unrest. Nearly all the WTC hijackers were Saudi. If its Kingdom topples, it will definitely have a religious govt. At which point, around 45% of the world oil (Iran, Iraq and Saudi) will be in control of the maulvis. All of whom will be quite willing to fight anyone, till death........as they have already shown...........

The possible toppling of the Saudi Kingdom and the acquisition of nukes by Al-Qaeda type organisations, is the biggest nightmare the US is facing..........Both of which have been accelerated and not decelerated by Iraq.

I think Iraq was a strategy carried out by a small but hugely influential pressure group (neo-cons etc.) to push their own agenda. Slowly but surely, they are now all being kicked out of the govt. One never sees Wolfowitz, Pearle etc. anymore. And I think if USA is in Iraq during the next elections, in any more than miniscule numbers, the Republican President will be out also...........

So you may want to look at the pressure groups, and not only the skills of Harvard professors, when evaluating US foreign policy..........

In my view, use of nuclear weapons is always condemnable except when used in retaliation. While conventional weapons kill a man, nuclear weapons kill the species. It harms DNA in an inheritable way causing misery for generations to come. Perhaps Truman wouldn`t have used it if he knew this.

Nuclear weapons, unlike fire bombs, also harm the biosphere in a virtually irreparable way.

In my opinion there should be a global consensus on `no first use` of nuclear weapons at least on paper. The existence of a declation to this effect will act as a comfort to countries that are involved in active pursuit of such weapons for nuclear deterrance.

Above all there should be an unequivocal public opinion against the use (not necessarily against acquisition) especially first use that it should be just unthinkable for the man with the finger on the button. If there was public awareness about the effects of nuclear weapons on germplasm, there would not have been people celebrating on Times Square. For them it was just another big bomb.

Internet gives power to people like never before. It is the most powerful anti-bomb force in my opinion. My request: condemn the use of the bomb so forcefully that there are no more Trumans and Fatmans.

tahmed32, vertex, Fuzair-

The list of Truman’s military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who’s who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, ``The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.``

Perhaps the most startling condemnation of Truman’s decision from a US military leader came from Admiral William D. Leahy, the president’s chief of staff. In his memoirs, Leahy denounced the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – an action he described as ``not worth of Christian man`` – as ``of no material assistance in our war against Japan. By using it Leahy said the US had descended to ``an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.``

Beside the condemnation of those who question the justification of the atomic bombings as ``anti-American`` a popular technique of those who defend Truman’s decision is to bring up the atrocities of the Japanese military. But, under what standards of morality are innocent Japanese men, women, and children legitimate targets because of the deplorable acts of Nanking and the Bataan Death March?

Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start: The decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded, testily:

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them

Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: ``The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,`` he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing ``all those kids.`` Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

Ralph Raico`s ``Harry S. Truman: Advancing the Revolution in John V. Denson, ed., Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom. Various other sources on the web.

While people talk about Nanking and Bataan, they forget that the same allies allowed the red army to march thru half of the Europe doing exactly the same thing that they were supposedly bombing Japan for.

# 61 fuzair
``There is a major distinction between the US/UK and Germany/Japan and it is this: the Allies did not sit around saying to themselves: how can we maximize the number of civilians we kill? The Axis did that.``

There is no need to be this callous while talking about a tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki magnitude.
The allies had won the war in the European theatre and they did not have to sit down and think about maximizing the dead body count after VE. They were planning to minimize their own body count at the expense of the Japanese. Things would have been different had they not already won in Europe. The reality is that as soon as the US entered the war, the allied victory was assured.

What is to say that if the situation had reversed? Knowing what we know now, Allies would too have planned to kill people in that situation. The West throughout the history had never hesitated to fight a bloody war and WWI is a good example of how brutally Europeans went after each other.

#92 by tahmed32
“Luckily for you, the Japanese lost and the Americans won.”

This is profound but difficult to predict. The Japanese, with little or no infrastructure to support and control the new colonies, could have been or could not have been worst than the current masters of the universe.
Thanks.

vertex #91 you write ``There is no room for moral relativism on this matter. Please do call a spade a spade. ``

Agreed. If the Japanese had won, you would have either not been born (because your elders would have been exterminated by the Japanese), or else would be slaving away as in illiterate villager for the glory of the Japanese god-King HiroHito. If this seems unbelievable, talk to the chinese or philipinos or indonesians who were unlucky enough to be ruled by japanese.

Luckily for you, the Japanese lost and the Americans won. So now you can write fancy stuff on the internet, and bash America on hiroshima and nagasaki (tomorrow it will be something else) like millions of half-brained muslims around the world.

You wanted to call a spade a spade. But do you have the nerve to handle this reality??

fuzair,

I am not looking for apologetics.

You are correct that the Americans and the allies had no hesitation to fire bomb ( I believe the original terminology was ``terror bomb``) Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, etc. It is said that more Japanese civilians had died due to the bombardments than from either tha ``fat man`` or ``little boy``.

The point was, the American atrocities against the Japanese were not in response to the Japanese atrocities against other Asians. It was for victory at all costs.

``There is a major distinction between the US/UK and Germany/Japan and it is this: the Allies did not sit around saying to themselves: how can we maximize the number of civilians we kill? The Axis did that.``

And that was stupid on their part, as it interfered with the war effort. The allies did not, however, think to ponder how to minimize civilian casualties. They had objectives, and could meet them by any means necessary. Loss of civilian life in no way impeded the allied war effort. In some cases, if not all, it was quite deliberate.

As for the two nukes, the goal was specifically to kill Japanese civilians...i.e. encourage surrender through terror. This is exactly the tactic you accuse the Japanese of.

``So while the Americans weren`t saints, they weren`t complete villains either. You cannot make glib moral equivalence arguments about WWII that easily.``

What you are doing is justifying the mass murder of civilians. There is no room for moral relativism on this matter. Please do call a spade a spade.

Re: # 70
Arjunm:
``If gas reaches 4.50 a gallon, they`ll dispense with such niceties and demand the marines take over the oil fields...

Don`t think for a minute that the US military doesn`t have contingency plans for just that...While they`re likely to be deployed should the saudi royal family get overthrown, 4.50 a gallon will do it...``

I guess Bush is drill a huge hole in Alaska at $4 a gallon and with draw some soldiers at $4.5. Congress will eventually say ````yes`` to both of them

Raja

Re: # 70
Arjunm:
``If gas reaches 4.50 a gallon, they`ll dispense with such niceties and demand the marines take over the oil fields...

Don`t think for a minute that the US military doesn`t have contingency plans for just that...While they`re likely to be deployed should the saudi royal family get overthrown, 4.50 a gallon will do it...``

I guess Bush is drill a huge hole in Alaska at $4 a gallon and with draw some soldiers at $4.5. Congress will eventually say ````yes`` to both of them

Raja