SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (516992)9/29/2009 11:28:16 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578095
 
"Something had to end the war, there was no end in site and the nukes ended it."

I don't consider myself scholarly enough to take a stand on that but I've heard others claim differently. Many claim the tide had turned and it was a matter of time. The numbers of dead would have been less without the A-bomb but it would have been more equal between allies and enemies. The strongest modern argument for having used the A-Bomb is that it was a convincing deterant for 50 years when sabors were being rattled. There was no longer a question about whether or not anyone would really use it and how devastating that would be. Too big of a cost for any Empire wannabees to pay.

"I understand the problem, I would not want to go back to the days of targeting civilians. "

There are lots of things civilizations have done in the past that none of us want to see again. I feel no shame in expressing my regrets, how else are we supposed to move on to better ways.

"But I also can envision circumstances where it would be the only way to bring about an end to the fighting."

Thank God for imagination. If we can imagine a worse case scenario, with a little effort we can also imagine ways to rise above it. By the way, I'm not a pacifist. If its a good fight or a worthy cause, stand up and go for it. If its something petty, walk away and live to fight another day.