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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (55178)	10/29/2002 6:10:38 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 281500

SFD - I see little to debate on whether dropping nukes on cities and burning 85-90% of population is a Bad Thing, and hence did not feel the need to go into details in my last post of why I think it was "Bad". Given the aggression you are throwing my way, AND the accusation that these opinions are no better than that of the Flat Earth Society, here's more: Re "America hater" That is not correct. I do not sympathize with the current US administration, and do not care for nukes on cities that target civilians, but I admire the stance taken by many previous US administrations and have nothing against the people, the principles, and the way of life of the US of A. Re Moral Error: More conventional deaths are "humane" and fewer atomic are "inhumane" I never thought the day would come when I would have to explain this, but I invite you to ponder on the lasting effects of nuclear fallout for generations - radiation poisoning causing deaths years later, deformed babies, poisoned land & food for years on end... Yes, it is not humane to nuke a city. I am just guessing but that might have something to do with the fact that nukes are a "no-no" in our day and age. Re civilian/military deaths You argue that targeting civilians with two nukes in two cities was ok because Tokyo bombings that preceded them killed a comparable figure of more than a hundred thousand civilians, and had the war gone on further, more civilians would be killed. It must be because of my need for a "refresher in logic" that cannot follow this argument. As far as I am concerned, the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the laws of armed conflict, and no previous comparable targeting of civilians (i.e. "Tokyo bombings killed as much, so what?") or estimations of future civilian casualties ("More would die if we hadn't nuked those cities.") can make that wrong a right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes deliberately targeted civilians and were hence war crimes: Presentation given at the Hiroshima Commemoration in Ottawa on August 6, 2001 ploughshares.ca Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were low priorities as military targets and (unlike Tokyo) were not bombed until August 1945, at war's end. Hiroshima's targeting was based largely on the city's size and the decision that the first atomic bombing be convincing internationally for all sorts of reasons, and that it cause the greatest possible psychological effect on Japan. While the city's military industrial plants were on the periphery of the city, it was the centre of the city that was targeted. This was not accidental. It seems I am not alone in feeling thus: Legal Affairs - The Case for Targeting Civilians and Why It Fails theatlantic.com Both Churchill and Truman brooded about the terrors they had unleashed to win the war. Mr. President," Churchill said at a January 1953 White House dinner, "I hope you have your answer ready for that hour when you and I stand before St. Peter and he says, 'I understand you two are responsible for putting off those atomic bombs. What have you got to say for yourselves?' " Neither man expected to be rewarded with a bevy of virgins. U.S. War Crimes (Hiroshima, The Law, and American Military Opinion). physics.ucsb.edu Admiral Leahy, America’s top uniformed military leader during WW II, closes his memoirs "I Was There” with the following opinion: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the dark ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children...” In short: A fundamental principle of international law and morality is that the deliberate murder of civilians is always wrong. In war, it is a war crime. In peace, it is terrorism. ... and if saying this makes me "dumb", illogical, ignorant, anti-American, "absurd", and "ridiculous" in your eyes, so be it.