Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (37665)	11/20/2001 9:52:19 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No, but Bin Laden is a coward. He's in the dingy while "his people" are going down with the ship.

To: epicure who wrote (37665)	11/20/2001 10:15:41 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'd not call him a coward, either. But then I don't generally apply that word to CiC's acting in leadership capacities. I don't think it was the easy way out, though. Necessary. It might, objectively, be justifiable to have invaded, and maybe spread the cost of lives across both countries... I don't think that would necessarily have been better for Japan, certainly not for the US, and I doubt any democratic (or indeed caring) leader is entirely objective when faced with the choice of killing the enemy alone or having his own troops killed too... PLus, of course, if it hadn't been used, how long before someone else did? The technology was there, science was ready and it would not have taken long. Arguably it was better that the USSR did know that the US was prepared to - did - use atomic weapons, in anger...

To: epicure who wrote (37665)	11/21/2001 1:02:45 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Would I have killed a million men to keep the principle of non-use of nuclear weapons? yes. But that doesn't make me braver than Truman, or more cowardly.. It simply means we analyze things differently. I don't personally have any principle against useing nuclear weapons. The death and destruction at Nagasaki and Heroshima where bad not the fact that the death and destruction was caused by nuclear weapons. The fire bombings of Tokyo killed more then either of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, so if we could have avoided doing any of these attacks on Japan without prolonging the war it would seem to me to make more sense to have not done that attack. In my opinion dropping the bombs on Nagasaki and Heroshima resulted in less death all around then an invasion would have so while the attacks where horrible I wouldn't consider them evil. Note: I am just talking about my own opinion I am not claiming that you would call them evil (or that you would not). Tim