|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Actually, by 'natives' I was referring to.... posted by Dmitry on May 25, 2001 at 13:09:36:
"""The argument of the nature: "We did it then, so we should now" is rarely considered a strong one. Each case stands on its own merit, and in my mind it was arguably justifiable in 45, but not in 65. That's how *I" feel, so sue me."""
Weak arguement? Perhaps. How about a question - why did the US stray from using A-bombs ever again? I don't see an answer.Why? I really don't understand your issue here. A-bomb, just like any other weapon, is hopefully the thing of the last resort. Forget for a moment about the political implications, that are not necessarily something we should be considering - much like we would have a happier place here if we didn't have to worry about the PC crap in every aspect of our lives.
Political considerations always get in a way of getting the job done, and the military is there simply to get that darn job done, and to get out of the way quickly and with low losses.
The use of A-bomb is not different from the use of any other form of deadly force. In every case one should make the judgement call and try to avoid it as much as possible - like a cop facing a tough situation. Would you then keep pressing the cop with questions of why he did't pull the gun this time? Hardly. You would simply thank God that he was able to avoid it THIS time.
Most situations in life are not black and white, and the very same people would often make a different decisions if put in the very same situation again. This is why I called that decision "arguably correct". And I perfectly understand the logic on the other side, the need to conduct ourselves above any reproach, and all the moral dilemas involved. The decision to drop the bomb was not something that I see as a trivial step, but it is a one I can understand and live with.
When asking "why not in Korea?" - those things are completely unrelated. Perhaps at some other time we could delve into the Korean war and discuss whether or not the bomb should have been used there, but now it is simply obfuscating the issue of the bomb in 45.
I always say that it is the agressor that carries the burden of responsibility for human life losses. The responsibility of the government fighting the agressor lies first and foremost with its own people. It is the lives of those people that are its number one priority. How far is that government prepared to go in order to save the lives of its citizens? That IS the question and the moral dilema.
I am not even sorry that I can't provide you with all the answers, for the simpe reason that they don't really exist...
Civilized people always struggle with many questions, that is normal.
***Still. How about it's the most horrid invention in history and the implications weren't even concieved by the people who gave an OK to drop them?As I said, it is normal for people to revisit their decisions and to even change their minds. That in itself does not necessarily make the original decision wrong. It simply demonstrates the progress in human thinking.
The whole idea of a good manager (and a commander...) is to be able to make quick decisions with insufficient information on hand. It is common to assign the degree of rightness to various decisions. Taken from that perspective the August of 45 decision is perhaps a 85% right one. Of course your analysis may be totally different, simply because, as I said, there are no black and whites in many issues.
""As I said in my post, civilized people can argue over these things and probably never completely agree on anything. That is normal.""
Civilized people dropped 2 A-bombs on "uncivilized" Japan. Why haven't they used any biological or chemical weapons in WWII? Geneva convention? Code of honor? European lives are worthier than Asian?Different weapons come with different degrees of stench attached, and that stench largely depends on the moral, personal and historical aspects. But in the nutshell, using an A-bomb is quick and decisive, while the rest are like cancer. When we administer a capital punishment, we do it in a quick fashion, we do not infect the guy with AIDS. Things are not called "mercy killings" for no reason...
""However, fundamentally I don't see any difference beetween then A-bomb, high explosives, machine guns and flame throwers.""
Fundamentally? How is that not different fundamentally? I have some posters prepared here... the mushroom, etc.Well, save your posters for now. I don't know if you caught the "killer bullet" stories here, but the bottom line is that pretty much all law enforcement today is armed with what used to be called "killer bullets". Turns out - those former "killer bullets" are better for everyone, except the perps, so the decision was not a difficult one. Simply a definition change.
And as far as "uncivilized" Japanese - please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, not even implied, so that was not a clean blow. What I said was that the Americans, being civilized people, struggled with the decision.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Dilemas - Victor Khomenko 15:10:46 05/25/01 (9)
- Re: Lemmas, more like :)) - Dmitry 20:42:22 05/25/01 (0)
- nuclear policy - late 20:32:13 05/25/01 (7)
- Never satisfied - Bruce from DC 14:01:05 05/26/01 (6)
- August 15 1940- a seemingly insignificant date. - john dem 17:44:02 05/26/01 (3)
- Supposedly........ - Chris Garrett 02:21:44 05/29/01 (2)
- Re: Supposedly........ - john dem 06:03:22 05/29/01 (0)
- stimulus/response - late 16:42:12 05/26/01 (1)
- way off topic here, but so what . . . - Bruce from DC 17:34:21 05/26/01 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]