Bin Laden And Hiroshima

ahsanhilal

Who, Sir, are you, and how did you cut through this crap so efficiently?

---

At least the first of the two questions is rhetorical.

I think physicist`s should stick to the profession that suits them best...physics (ain`t I captain obvious). The article shows sincere effort to make some sense of the chaotic international ruckus on the brink of explosion, but it lacks the strategic insight of someone who is trained and has worked on providing political theories. Merely posting obvious facts regarding US use of nuclear arsenal some 6 decades ago, and linking them up with the current fanatics running amock in our country does not form a cogent analysis of the world`s pathetic situation.

There are many more reasons for nucler proliferation such as iconoclastic nationalism, disconneted religious fanatacism, etc. As to whether the use of nuclear weaponry is permissible in state of conflict, I think the question knows its own end. The only problem of nuclear stupidity stems from idiocy of some dictators and mass-murderers. As far as state`s are concerned, the MAD principle even if not enunciated in legal contrtaction is known by most statesmen and their cronies; anything otherwise would be downright devastating for themselves even.

Mr. Khamkhwa, Mr. Godboley, and Mr. Sattar,

As correctly pointed out by Mr. Montag, Sri Sir Mr. Tahmed Ji Sahib, is THE MOST polite, respectful, AND respected presence on Chowk. I thank Mr. Montag for his eloquence in supporting this saintly person. Your collective remarks, as hateful, despicable, idiotic, and nonsensical as they are, deserve to be refuted outright. I respect and admire Mr. Tahmed Sahib for his sincerity, his compassion, his sense of logic, and his infrequent but hilarious humor. He has the laudable ability to consider all sides of an issue and is a pleasure to correspond with even when one disagrees with him.

As for all the khamkhwa stink raised by the insignificant ``gender bender with a tender fender` of the same usesless nic, I can only say that this insidious cross-dresser is also a yellow journalist - and not of the oriental persuasion. ``He/she`` has posted several messages from Unplugged without presenting the other side of the altercation. Khamkhwa has khamkhwa meN abused Mr. Salim and his friends. ``He/she`` has used inside influence with Chowk to have Mr. Salim and his friends` messages and threads deleted and erased without cause. So, after having given Chowk Staff, Khamkhwa and his cohorts, sufficient requests, and then warnings, Mr Salim proceeded to abuse Khamkhwa and his cohorts and provide them with a real reason to delete messages and erase threads. If you deny people the right to express themselves - even when they have rational and polite things to say, you might end up listening to expressions that might be less rational and not that polite. :

Salim

Simple truth is that we had not evolved as a compassionate society back then as we are now. Today `human right` is a big issue, the term didn`t even exist, capital sentence is being abolished everywhere and transparency and individual freedom is encouraged. Besides saturation media coverage would have ensured that at least Nagasaki bomb was avoided.

Also, what is equally bad or worse than an actual nuclear attack is the reckless proliferation of nuclear technology, of which Pakistan has proved to be the undisputed pioneer. I wouldn`t be surprised if the next nuclear bomb is dropped by North Korea, which acquired nuclear know-how from not unsurprisingly, Pakistan, in exchange for missile technology.

It is funny that the Paki criticism of the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is damningly absent when talk veers round to Pakistan`s nuclear program. While India has a stated no first use policy, Pakistan toots it nuclear horn at every given opportunity.

Now please don`t give us the BS about how Pakistan feels threatened by India. All the three and a half wars our countries have fought were started by Pakistan.

I find the criticism of USA for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki amusing. Imperial Japan was a vicious state. Their brutality in China, Korea, Philippines, Singapore and Andaman Islands is well documented. If Japanese occupied India we would not have a population problem for sure.

Re: # 124
...most chowkies know you are the latest version of salim... hiro...premwala...;)

Re: # 123
...i am only helping spread your good work to the interactors at front page who may not be aware of your repertoire...;)

OK man, that was a typo.. some 2000 are buried there, but total American soldiers killed is estimated at 400 K to ½ million. But that’s not important.

500,000 soldiers in normandy? that is more than the total us deaths in ww2

Heck with nukes and the history of modern Wars, it is saddening to read a political account of wars by a professor of nuclear physics. What the pluck is wrong with these Pakis? Every one wants to opine on issues that are way outside of their expertise. I just returned from Pakistan. It would be awesome if a few professors got together to find a solution to provide clean drinking water for Pakistanis than b’s’ing about why Americans bombed Hiroshima in 1945.

Only a little over 250K people died in nuke attacks on Hiroshima (twice as many American Soldiers are buried in Normandy), while over 20 Millions Russians were killed by Stalin, and not to mention 6 million Yahoodis by Hazrat Hitler Elehe-Salam. Pasha and Kamal killed over a Million Armenians (1.2 to be exact). Pakistanis butchered 3 Million Bengalis, and so on. The point is that people get killed in conflicts.

Worry about providing clean drinking water to Pakistanis.

#122, You are on sick puppy. Shame on you.

Mr. Khamkhwa #122,
Please keep your sophomoric pranks from Unplugged to that medium where morons and imbeciles reign as they control who can say what. Please do not pollute FP with your trash.
Thanks,

Re: # 120

here are some profoundly erudite thoughts of our learned salim aka hiro aka premwala...for the front pagers...learn and prosper...;)

Dear Chowk Staff and Khamkhwa and Mr. Godbole, important message for you



Started by hiro on August 10, 2005 11:17am PT

Dear Chowk Staff and Khamkhwa and Mr. Godbole, important message for you

Ulloo ke pathoN, haramzaadoN, tumhari maaN ki choot, tumhari behnoN ke choot meN sub kaalon ke loRey paReN. Tumhari apni gaandon meN keeRey baseN, aur tumhare chutRoN meN bunderoN ke loRay bhar jaaeN. Scout aur Saminasha or Sobia tumhare choTay choTay loRay chaba chaba kar aur choTay banaaN deN.

tahmed (#116):

In WWII almost a hundred thousand Japanese civilians were instantly killed … so that their leaders could be taught a lesson. Read this line again. Note the underlined words. This is similar to killing children of a dangerous, bigoted man … so that he could be taught a lesson.

Yesterday on NPR Terry Gross was interviewing head of some fatwa council from some Islamic organization in the US. Apparently several Muslim organizations have come together to officially condemn terrorism, suicide bombings through an edict. He was asked by Terry if this edict condemns killing civilians only or does it also condemn killing men in uniform (for e.g. US soldiers in Iraq). He replied that it applies to condemning killing civilians only.

He referenced a Quranic verse (from Chapter 5, I think) to substantiate his view … that killing civilians in a war goes against the message of Quran.

For whatever reasons, it seems that even the ullema are getting on board with accepting the message of Quran. Though they dragged their feet for a long time … it is “better later than never” kinda thing. However, you are still stuck in a mindset where killing civilians in order to win a war is acceptable.

Good grief … and all along I thought Urstruly had a problem …

Finally … knowing facts ... is different from ... understanding how facts fit together. Your conclusions are overly simplistic. You are lumping all Japanese in one category. Japanese leaders were lunatics … but did Japanese civilians deserved to be nuked for it? If nothing else, take a moment to understand Quran before lecturing others on it.

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....

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

Re: # 78

Romair:

``....... Iraq would not have been attacked, if it had nukes. And North Korea would have been attacked, if it did not have nukes...........

Not letting middle east / Arab / Iran become go nuclear is a deliberate strategy, and tactic. Iraq was and would have been pre-emptively attacked.

Iran is a bigger headache, especially a peaceful transfer to power thru democratic process. Thus does not give the west any reason or excuse to destablize it. I have a feeling that thru Shia alliance in Iran and Iraq, the west might find an accepted form of stable governance model for the middle east. The signal will be increasingly public signal of the West`s pressure on Pakistan. I will not be least bit surprised, if Pakistan looses favor to Iran+ Shia Iraq + Cost to the west as drivers to find common ground and become a part of the solution.

Even Saudis will be worried by Iran + Shia Iraq alliance recently signed. This in my view might achieve once again what the west could not achieve thru Iraq war, which would be diasterous for Pakistani interests, but not the West`s.

Regarding, North Korea, even the S. Kroeans concede that do not want the U.S. involvement in controlling N. Korean nuclear weapons. I had the personally known Dr. Wan Hee Kim - the father of S. Korea`s electronic revolution, and travelled with him all over S. Korea and brought him to India as advisor to my company in India. We spent many interesting hours together. Dr. Kim used to tell me that S. Koreans privately want N. Korea to remain nuclear to counter China and Japan. He would say that N. and S. Korea will merge and would have merged just about the time, E. and W. Germany merged. The cost of German merger was too much for S. Korea. to absorb.

The equation there is very different because players, including S. Korea and Japan do not want N. Korea to loose or have nuclear weapons under Chinese influence. They want to control them. That is where the delay is, and how much of the cost should of merger of Korea be absorbed by the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. has no strategic interest only historical interest left over from the encirclement of communism days.

``Nuclear warfare, specifically between NATO and USSR is well advanced, beyond the physical size of the areas. Each side has the ability to completely annihilate the other side, in a first strike, not leaving anything. 110 million Europeans or Americans could completely destroy USSR, not leaving anything behind.``

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. Each reduced the West to the just about the same level as that of the Soviets. For the west, it pointed to a great decline from position of strength to almost equality with western society, economy and scientific development being pushed back several hundred years, and in case of Nuclear winter at least thousand year!!! No war strategician can be allowed to start such a war in civilian societies. In military dictatorship it may be a different thing.

``Only in scenarios like India/Pak would physical size matter. However, even there, the tonnage will eventually reach a stage where both sides could easily annihilate each other.... ``

No true, there is no such thing as a complete annihilation of India or Pakistan or both. Once again, there would be residual left over. Although that may include survivors living in Tora Bora like caves. Neither generals in Pakistan nor politicians in India want that to happen to their survivors. This thought and reasoning acts as a great deterrent.

``This is why submarine launched nukes were developed. So that, if one side is fully annihilated geographically, it can still have a second strike capability, from subs. In that sense, the number of subs available is the real second-strike capability. However, what is the point of having second strike capability, when the people on the subs have no country to return to.. ``

These were all part of upping the ante and quite deliberate. During informal conversations, the professor used to tell us that the U.S. and the Soviets exchanged the design blueprints of nuclear submarines so that they can help each others nuclear submarines in distress.

I think it is not worth while, I know it will hurt Indian and Pakistani pride, to discuss India Paksitan nuclear situation. It exists as a ground reality, which so controlled that generals in Pakistan feel enslaved to the U.S. to touch that nuclear button. India now gloating about joining the nuclear club, the price extracted by the West for India`s ego is no less than the price paid by Paksitan`s generals to remain an outside the club, nuclear power.

``Iraq war and susequent RE-grouping of Al-Qeda there as a consequence has confirmed that the west can create to centers of controlled violence - battlefields outside their backyard to make the rest safer and more secure trade and commerce and living.``

I hope you don`t seroiusly believe this.

In fact I do believe it to be the strategy the west is following and feel the West will continue to follow and may open a battlefront in Sudan and Somalia too. I entered ``RE`` which I had left out earlier. Mind you, I have never implied anything about whether it is right or wrong.

``This is the, ``We gathered them all there, so they don`t attack Kansas`` theory!! The only threat the USA has in its backyard are terrorist attacks. Iraq`s invasion has made that more probable. Not less. The USA never attacked Iraq to make it a center of Al-Qaeda.``

No you are stating just three (a) ``Kansas.....``, (b) threats more probable; and (c) never attacked Iraq -- of the infinite number of possible corollories and consequences of what I am saying and then jumping to justify. Presence in Iraq is a reality. I do believe that the West entered Iraq with a long term ground presence there, whether that presence will attract Al-Qaeda was expected or unexpected side-effect, I highly doubt that it was not discussed in the war-room and within the war-room openly wished also.

The West and the East have far greater resources to open more battlefront, as long as others can do their bidding and fighting. To them, it is administering radiation and chemotherapy in the malignant parts. Regarding urban attacks, of 9/11 and 7/7 type, all subsequent statements that have come out, spell out expect more not less. Britain is about to introduce a bill that makes preaching of hateful message a treason against the state!! Think about it as consequence manifestation of the chemo and radiation therapy to fight cancer cells the body fabric of the society.

``This is the biggest fear the USA had, i.e what if Al-Qaeda finds another center, which they now seem to have in Iraq...........In fact, Al-Qaeda will be far more dangerous, to the USA, from Iraq then it was from Afghanistan......... ``

I think you are over playing the fear factor, while I see that the West is upping the ante.... and is prepared for response. Al-Qaeda inside the U.S. and Europe is more dangerous. Even for this they are prepared to tackle. Examples exists in recent history that range from forcible conversion of muslims into christianity (Spain, Austria and Hungary), internment of entire Japanese population. I know these are unpalatable and extremely difficult to speak and listen, but when removing cancer cell from the body is the challenge?
Think about it, then.

The western strategicians do not exclude the surprise new battlefronts that Al-Qaeda can open. Besides, I don`t think the West thought an attack of the type happend in London would not happen and therefore was surprised.

So the surprise element is not ``as shock-and-awe`` as 9/11 was. I kind of agree with GODOT`s observation elsewhere that certain people in the West may even want Al-Qaeda to respond strongly and with greater frequency.

``In addition, Iraq now has a govt. that is heavily aligned with Iran, which is also the last thing the USA would have wanted.......... ``

This, as I have said earlier is the toughest scenario and the worst nightmare for the western planners. The transfer of power in Iranian election was more peaceful than any transfer of power in the middle east, probably ever had been.

Iranian elections have put the hardest bullet on the sliver platter to swallow for those planners who are currently ``trying`` to introduce democracry with bullets. I have said this many times at Chowk. Islamic organization should launch media campaign to illustrate it; and that the gunpointing at them is just as bad as gunpointing at anyother. Without gunpointing, the muslim world too is capable of producing its own democracry. I would go even further and reject Politcal Islam label, and OBL as the symbol of this label. Instead project democractic Iran as the alternative, something the west and east should be prepared to accept and then deal with it.

``Basically the USA has done in Iraq, what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, i.e. it has over-committed its forces, without a clear exit strategy.......Even the USA cannot keep adding $80 billion to its budget deficit every year, for Iraq. And it will be out of soldier rotations by the end of 2006. After which even the Republican congressmen will go against Bush, since their constituents will not want to be re-assigned to Iraq as National Guardsmen.......... ``

You are taking a short term view, whereas, the west is taking the view of continued world dominance.

What looks in the short term, for the control of levers that now annually generate wealth of several tens of trillion dollars (and by the time the turning point = alternate way of generating greater wealth emerges) may be big, but is chum change and sound investment for the West. The cost is on hundreds of trillion dollars annual economy would be $80 B x 50 (years) $400 Billion price tag, if the oil needs to be controlled for that long. Take an investment view, and you will see it as a decent return investment although the benefits will be realized by grand children`s generation, social security, healthcare etc. notwithstanding.

``Iraq, after 2006 or so, with no US forces there, has to be the biggest nightmare for any US govt., at the moment. I predicted, before the war started that it could turn into Afghanistan.....which seems to be happening. The USA, has made, almost one by one, the same moves USSR made in Afghanistan........... ``

No I do not think Iraq is the worst nightmare.

That would be if National Guardsmen, repeat Kent State University massacare, and thus make it possible for million men marches can be organized on a monthly basis in the cities all over the world. Something I was witness to during my student days as a result of Vietnam War. That forced the U.S. to find ``honor`` in defeat. Vietnam War was lost in college campuses, and streets of the U.S. and European cities.

``........I would be interested in your comments........and whether you have studied this subject formally.......... ``

Yes, my professor who taught us negotiating strategies at HBS was part of the negotiating team for SALT I & II, and an advisory team for PLO Israeli negotiations. He used to tell us interesting anecdotes during and after the class discussions.

Anil Kapuria

Mista Premwalla Salim #52 haiiii!! Please to notu gleat conceln fol werfale of japaanese pipple in honolable hilishima/nagasaki by some pakistani pipple on chowk. Pakistani pipple velly velly concened for japanese plospellity and happiness. If someone say: look japanese empelol HiloHito (haiiii!!! Most Honolable Empelol San) he killu many chinoo pipple, Pakistani pipple say but japanese pipple not white lace. OK to killu pipple if not white lace.

#83 by Romair on August 8, 2005 11:40am PT


The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....


If so, I`d question if those muslims were ever ``with`` the US....

Re. not using the first atomic weapons in Europe – the war in Europe ended in early May 1945 months before any devices were ready. The availability of adequate quantities of fissile material (production of which accounted for the bulk of the Manhattan project’s industrial effort – as opposed to scientific effort) was the limiting factor.

Large-scale (i.e. kilogram quantity) production of high-enriched uranium began only in early 1945; similar with weapons-grade plutonium. The first test of a plutonium bomb occurred on July 16th 1945 (it was considered imperative to test a prototype of the more complex plutonium weapon before actual use). The uranium bomb did not require to be tested but used a very large amount of uranium; the necessary amounts became available only by July 1945. A reasonable timeline can be found here. A very readable account of the entire Manhattan Project is Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

Let`s understand some definitions, or rather ``fine points.``

If a white man kills another white man, it is called a war.
If a white man kills a black man, it is called hot pursuit.
If a white man kills a brown man, it is called Crusade.
If a white man kills a yellow man, it is called saving lives.
If a white man kills a red man, it is called civilization.
If a white man commits suicide, it is called a tragedy.


If a black man kills a white man, it is called rebellion.
If a black man kills a black man, it is called jungle rumble.
If a black man kills a brown man, it is called ``who cares.``
If a black man kills a yellow man, it is called attempted looting.
If a black man kills a red man, it is called assimilation.

If a brown man kills a white man, it is called terrorism.
If a brown man kills a brown man, it is called insurgency.
If a brown man kills a black man, it is called extreme slavery.
If a brown man kills a yellow man, it is called heroism.
If a brown man kills a red man, it is called genocide.

Godot #27: ``I will not be surprised if American (and European) conservatives are secretly hoping for a Muslim terrorist nuclear attack on their mainland.``

I hope you are not serious, either. There are a lot of whackos in the USA, especially amongst the neo-cons and religious right. But I doubt anyone in the USA would want a nuclear bomb going off inside the USA, including Ann Coulter (though Ann Coulter did openly declare on Canadian TV that she wanted Canada to support the USA in the Iraq War, much like it supported the USA in Vietnam. Not realizing that Canada did not go to Vietnam!!).

I think you are giving undue importance to the American-Muslims, in this whole scenario. I suppose it is because you are one, and hence it is close to your heart. But, as I said, American-Muslims are insignificant expendable commodities, in this conflict. As far as either side is concerned. The Americans don`t really care much for them, and unlike the Jews, American-Muslims have developed no political clout (do keep in mind that for a long time, Jews and Blacks were expendable commodities also, until they developed political clout). And Al-Qaeda etc. don`t care much for American-Muslims, either. They are in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. They are completely at the mercy of the actions of US govt. and/or Al-Qaeda. Which is why, so many of them are apprehensive, and taking their anger out on Pakistan and other such countries......Not realizing that, barring the rich elite of Pakistan, who have kids in the USA etc., no one else in those countries is too bothered about American-Muslims, either........

In any war, one has to counter and neutralize the strategic aims of the opposing sides. In that process, one may be forced to lose some tactical battles. But as long as one wins the strategic war, one is the winner..........

What is Al-Qaeda`s (and I am talking about any anti-US militant force here) strategic plan? It wants to create an, ``Us vs Them`` situation between the USA and the Arabs (or Muslims, as a whole). It`s target has always been primarily USA; not Europe or Canada, mind you. Once it has created that scenario, it gains ample room to carry out violence. All such orgnaizations need public support and sympathy to survive.

Once it has that, it will mark its time, to get a nuke that it can set off in the USA.........That`s it. That is the strategic goal of Al-Qaeda. After that, it could care less, what happens to whom...........

Is the USA countering Al-Qaeda`s strategic role, or unintentionally assisting in it. In my opinion, it has overwhelmingly done the later, through various policies. The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....

hiro:
eh what? spengler? :D . do jerry springer write under a psuedonym @ asitimes.com? that would be real funny.

cheers man...

#79 by Raw_Dust on August 8, 2005 11:21am PT

Please don`t confuse our freiends of the Islamist persuasion with facts or logic...They`ve repeated the 100k civilian casualty mantra 100K times without once acknowledging that the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by the ``insurgents``...

If I had a penny for everytime a pakis has demanded sharon`s coviction for his complicity in the shabra and shatilla massacares, I could buy a merc...

OTOH, If I had a penny for every time a paki has written an indignant letter to a paki rag demanding prosecution of the paki army generals who butchered bengalis in 71, i wouldn`t have enough money to fill up the gas tank of my merc..

#79, Shame on you for watching Jerry Sepngler - rated as the worst show on TV.

#77:
And it seems as Sepngler of asiatimes pointed out that American military is trying to avoid confrontation as much as possible by looking at the ratio of civilians blown up by ``insurgents`` : number of american casualties. This ratios has been increasing steadily for last a month or so.

Anil #58: ``Yes, the U.S. would have attacked, by then the weaker Japan!!!!......Only because it was very weak by then and was contemplating a surrender. A Missile on Ant`s - (weak)`s - Back Does Not Protect the Ant.``

This is an interesting analysis. I cannot agree with it. I don`t think the USA would have attacked Japan, if Japan could nuke the USA. Regardless of how weak Japan may have been. The current example of Iraq and North Korea are right in front of us. Iraq would not have been attacked, if it had nukes. And North Korea would have been attacked, if it did not have nukes...........

``please do not forget that only mind games have been played with Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), no one has any experience...... with larger territory, to be able to come back and retaliate in either conventional or in nuclear - or both - form with an overwhelming and massive second strike.``

Nuclear warfare, specifically between NATO and USSR is well advanced, beyond the physical size of the areas. Each side has the ability to completely annihilate the other side, in a first strike, not leaving anything. 110 million Europeans or Americans could completely destroy USSR, not leaving anything behind.

Only in scenarios like India/Pak would physical size matter. However, even there, the tonnage will eventually reach a stage where both sides could easily annihilate each other....

This is why submarine launched nukes were developed. So that, if one side is fully annihilated geographically, it can still have a second strike capability, from subs. In that sense, the number of subs available is the real second-strike capability. However, what is the point of having second strike capability, when the people on the subs have no country to return to..

``The west did not agree to no first strike in western Europe for this reasons, emanating from heavy concentration of population and military / industrial base``

Treaties are only as good as the paper they are written on. No or Yes First Strike Treaties have never, historically, stopped anyone who wanted to attack. The reason the West did not agree to a no first strike treaty is the same reason as why Pakistan will not agree to one with India, i.e. the West had far fewer conventional forces. Hence, its policy was to immediately go nuclear. Much like Pakistan`s.

Do remember, in any first-strike, Europe could annihilate all of USSR, and USSR could annihilate all of Europe........

``Iraq war and susequent grouping of Al-Qeda there as a consequence has confirmed that the west can create to centers of controlled violence - battlefields outside their backyard to make the rest safer and more secure trade and commerce and living.``

I hope you don`t seroiusly believe this. This is the, ``We gathered them all there, so they don`t attack Kansas`` theory!! The only threat the USA has in its backyard are terrorist attacks. Iraq`s invasion has made that more probable. Not less. The USA never attacked Iraq to make it a center of Al-Qaeda. This is the biggest fear the USA had, i.e what if Al-Qaeda finds another center, which they now seem to have in Iraq...........In fact, Al-Qaeda will be far more dangerous, to the USA, from Iraq then it was from Afghanistan.........

In addition, Iraq now has a govt. that is heavily aligned with Iran, which is also the last thing the USA would have wanted..........Basically the USA has done in Iraq, what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, i.e. it has over-committed its forces, without a clear exit strategy.......Even the USA cannot keep adding $80 billion to its budget deficit every year, for Iraq. And it will be out of soldier rotations by the end of 2006. After which even the Republican congressmen will go against Bush, since their constituents will not want to be re-assigned to Iraq as National Guardsmen..........

Iraq, after 2006 or so, with no US forces there, has to be the biggest nightmare for any US govt., at the moment. I predicted, before the war started that it could turn into Afghanistan.....which seems to be happening. The USA, has made, almost one by one, the same moves USSR made in Afghanistan...........

This is an interesting discussion. I have quite a bit of interest in nuclear doctrine..........As, apparently are you........I would be interested in your comments........and whether you have studied this subject formally..........

#75 by zeemax on August 8, 2005 10:53am PT


Hmmm .... 4.50 a gallon will do what 160,000 American troops couldn`t do against a bunch of `insurgents`.


The insurgents are only killing Americans troops because the US military is trying it`s damndest to not kill civilians...while you may come back with the standard islamic mantra of 100K civilian casualties(most of which are by the ``insurgents``), it doesn`t change the fact...

4.5$/gallon and average Americans won`t care how many saudis the marines have to waste to get the oil...

Once the marines are told to dispense with all niceties, we`ll see what the ``insurgents`` can do...

#73, {`` still do feel sorry for the innocent Japanese.....then, I read about their atrocities in Nanking and other places....the brutality of Japanese forces matched Nazi atrocities..... ``}

Kaura,
I agree with your statement that the Japanese were very cruel in China. This however does not negate the fact that the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were almost all innocent civilians. I think the accepted definition of terrorism is the use of deadly force against civilians - you may want to add the word ``surprise`` in the definition if you like.

#74 by kaurasach

At Last ... a voice of reason.

#70 by arjun_m

Hmmm .... 4.50 a gallon will do what 160,000 American troops couldn`t do against a bunch of `insurgents`.

Acquiring and using wont defeat the US - but it will knock the chip off the US shoulder -future enemies will be emboldened. Where and against WHO will US retaliate. Islamic radicals are globally present.

It will bring a setback to Muslims/Islam in the US/ and or West.


Acqiring of lethal weapons has not stopped wars in the past nor will it stop in future. The number of casualties and the degree of devastation will increase.....and it is not if someone willuse weapon against US - but WHEN??

Nature finds a way to balance and curtail the ``Absolute``. At present, Islam/muslims have replaced USSR for the job.

I used to feel sorry for the Japanese.....The US usedthe bomb more to hummilliate the Japs more than finish the war.

I still do feel sorry for the innocent Japanese.....then, I read about their atrocities in Nanking and other places....the brutality of Japanese forces matched Nazi atrocities.....

one evil destroyed another - whose turn has come to be destroyed by another.....and innocent shall perish too .... as has been the unfortunate circle of nature`s cycle.

Re: # 67

Zeemax

``Your choice``

That`s all it boils down to: ``Your choice``

Someone told me the other day, ``there are three sides to a story: your story, his story, and the truth.`` If indeed not nuking their wasp brothers was the real motive behind nuking the ``Japs,`` then that ``truth`` will forever be unkown. No one is going to admit it and it`s all ``Your choice``

Re: # 48
patwari

that`s precisely the problem muslims don`t know when they are beaten!

#69 by zeemax on August 8, 2005 10:12am PT



Surely, do you mean like Americans have taken over Iraq? You can`t be serious.


No...the American public doesn`t expect the marines to whack a bunch of towelheads and take over the iraqi oilfields...People who suported the war did so because they thought saddam had WMDs and because they think a democratic iraq will be a good idea...to that extent, they expect their soldiers to not torture iraqis at abu ghraib...hence the outrage over that...

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...