[eternaltriangle]

	Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	fair enough. I'd wait to see how the ensuing international nuclear arsenal issues play out before retracting my answer though.

But nuclear weapons were going to be developed anyway. That said, I will admit that predicting a nuclear peace (ie. that no two states with nuclear weapons will ever go to war) is a pretty easy prediction to make. If nuclear war doesn't happen, I'm right, if it does happen, people will be too busy fighting off giant radscorpions to care that I was wrong.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Entering the military and civil nuclear era does not stand out as a particularly bright move, from where I stand. Moreover it poses the question: has anyone but the US the right to A-bomb other countries?

Ask this question:

	Has anyone but the US the right to A-bomb bomb other countries?

or this one:

	Has anyone but the US the right to A-bomb bomb other countries?

Those questions are more relevant to the underlying moral subject. The act matters far more than the implementation. Do the dead particularly care if their head was smashed with a rock or incinerated in an atomic fire? In either case they're dead.

[Dung]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ask this question: or this one: Has anyone but the US the right to A-bomb bomb other countries? Those questions are more relevant to the underlying moral subject. The act matters far more than the implementation. Do the dead particularly care if their head was smashed with a rock or incinerated in an atomic fire? In either case they're dead.

This is grossly oversimplifying, thank you very much.

Hundreds Thousands of people suffered from A bombs - some still do. Countless people (pretty much an entire country) didn't die and still suffered from these - at various levels.

It has far wider implications - for the entire world - than smashing people to death with rocks - including, and not the least, the questionable moral high ground for the US to use depleted uranium ammunitions in so called conventional warfare, to this day...for the "good" cause only, mind you. Can we agree that any other country would be under serious UN scrutiny for this?

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is grossly oversimplifying, thank you very much. Hundreds Thousands of people suffered from A bombs - some still do. Countless people (pretty much an entire country) didn't die and still suffered from these - at various levels.

Millions of people have died in conventional bombing.

	It has far wider implications - for the entire world - than smashing people to death with rocks - including, and not the least, the questionable moral high ground for the US to use depleted uranium ammunitions in so called conventional warfare, to this day...for the "good" cause only, mind you.

Are you claiming moral high ground exists in war?

	Can we agree that any other country would be under serious UN scrutiny for this?

None of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council ever face "serious scrutiny".

[Subgenius]

Jefferson Davis giving up the good fight.

---------- Post added 09-28-2011 at 01:54 AM ----------

Seeing a lot of a-bomb posts.

I would say, conversely, that every President/Government that signs agreements against chemical weapons in just plain dumb. Why have radioactive wastelands and such destruction when you can just kill/incapacitate your enemy with chemicals.

[Dung]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Millions of people have died in conventional bombing.

Yes, of course. That's rhetoric. Atomic bombing is in my opinion the worst decision a US president ever made for reasons unrelated to the number of death: it ended the war with the Japanese, more like a betrayal than a glorious victory - it posed and still poses a serious moral issue just like remote controlled bombing does as opposed to fight the noble way. It made terrible damage to the US image abroad as well - which reached new highs with each ensuing war. And certainly didn't prevent the Cold War from going hot, in fact it just contributed to the Cold War surreal nuclear escalation, which has threatened humanity since 1945. Now I'll wait to see how the ensuing international nuclear arsenal issues play out before retracting my answer.

Not necessarily speaking about war here, but consider things like rusting, decommissioning issues, fallible manipulation, fallible, or aging technology...and the danger that this arsenal ends up in the wrong hands, the wrong government. Entering in that era, with that kind of problem is the worse things you could do on the long run and it was preventable. Japan was on its knees when the bombings occurred. The truth is US was a vengeful nation that wanted to impress the world and send a strong message to the Soviets.

And sure, nuclear weapons were going to be developed anyway. Being the first nation - and only to date - to use them against civilian populations does not make it less of a shame.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you claiming moral high ground exists in war?

No. I was talking about the implication of the first atomic bombings. This said they are conventions in war. The US claimed the moral high ground when they bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki and still claim the moral high ground while waging wars agains weaker nations, using unconventional weapons (including when mistakenly bombing civilians). That's a fact, not a claim. It's partly a result of the impunity gained by A bombings.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	None of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council ever face "serious scrutiny".

That's why they face terrorism.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, of course. That's rhetoric. Atomic bombing is in my opinion the worst decision a US president ever made for reasons unrelated to the number of death: it ended the war with the Japanese, more like a betrayal than a glorious victory -

The fuck? They surrendered unconditionally.
How in the hell do you define a "glorious victory" over Japan?
How in the hell was it a betrayal?

Make sense man!

	it posed and still poses a serious moral issue just like remote controlled bombing does as opposed to fight the noble way.

Oh, here's where it all stems from. Stop playing Call of Duty, it's warped your view on real life war.

[Dung]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The fuck? They surrendered unconditionally. How in the hell do you define a "glorious victory" over Japan? How in the hell was it a betrayal?

Just like Pearl Harbour was. But on civilians. How glorious is that?

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Make sense man!

I like that quote, very powerful line. (and funny!) Thumbs up for this.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, here's where it all stems from. Stop playing Call of Duty, it's warped your view on real life war.

No, probably not. I understand your points though. You can say it was a good tactical decision although that's still arguable. I think it was the worse decision any US president has made; this decision itself triggered a potentially lethal chain of events. Yes, I think we disagree there, man :-)

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In no particular order: 1. Indian Removal Act (Trail of Tears). 2. Wilson's involvement in the Treaty of Versailles. 3. Bay of Pigs invasion. Didn't think very hard on these, take at face value.

I like the second. I think the Treaty of Versailles was a low blow to the defeated powers after World War I. If it didn't sow so much anger there probably wouldn't have been a World War II. They should have taken a lesson from Lincoln's view on the defeated South and allowed Germany to easily integrate back into Europe instead they tried to humiliate them and well, that worked out. I'm not quite sure how much Wilson could have influenced the other European powers in the drafting of the treaty though.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, probably not. I understand your points though. You can say it was a good tactical decision although that's still arguable. I think it was the worse decision any US president has made; this decision itself triggered a potentially lethal chain of events. Yes, I think we disagree there, man :-)

I didn't even get into your argument on whether it was a sound tactical decision.
I just addressed this idea of glory and "noble way" of fighting.

But I get it now. Provocation. Ah, oh, you got me. Fool me once, shame on you.

Here's your glory: They make robots and give them to us. And Anime. To the victor go the spoils!

[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. it ended the war with the Japanese, more like a betrayal than a glorious victory - it posed and still poses a serious moral issue just like remote controlled bombing does as opposed to fight the noble way. 2. It made terrible damage to the US image abroad as well - which reached new highs with each ensuing war. 3. Entering in that era, with that kind of problem is the worse things you could do on the long run and it was preventable. Japan was on its knees when the bombings occurred. The truth is US was a vengeful nation that wanted to impress the world and send a strong message to the Soviets. 3. And sure, nuclear weapons were going to be developed anyway. Being the first nation - and only to date - to use them against civilian populations does not make it less of a shame. 4. No. I was talking about the implication of the first atomic bombings. This said they are conventions in war. The US claimed the moral high ground when they bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki and still claim the moral high ground while waging wars agains weaker nations, using unconventional weapons (including when mistakenly bombing civilians). That's a fact, not a claim. It's partly a result of the impunity gained by A bombings.

1. Ok, how exactly was the dropping of the A bombs a betrayal? And who was it a betrayal against? And the other part of this that is underlined has to be about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Fighting the noble way? /facepalm, Grow up.

2. How exactly did the A bombs cause terrible damage to the US reputation/image? We were the toast of every non communist nation in the world. The other wars don't exactly correlate to the A bomb other than through the fact they are wars. In Korea, Vietnam, Central and South America, and Iraq we were invited by the governments in power at the time. Were many of these actions to counter communism? Sure. That doesn't relate to the A bombing of Japan.

3. Sorry, this isn't true. Culturally they weren't beaten.They had suffered hard knocks, but you had very honorable high command military planning a coup d'etat right before the bombings and actually implementing it after the bombings. If that is defeated, we must have different definitions of the term. If the US was vengeful, so what? What nation entering a war as the attacked party doesn't go in with vengeance in mind? It's the reason war exists. People don't naturally pull a Jesus and let the attacker hit them again. And honestly, would you have preferred someone other than America or Great Britain dropping the A bomb? If the Soviets or Nazis had dropped the bomb, we would be living in a much different world that would be much worse for wear. Christ, Stalin didn't even have to drop a bomb to kill more people. He killed and affected millions of more people in the Ukraine before the war even started than those Japanese who were killed, injured, or permanently crippled by the A bomb. I assume you know how the Nazi side worked out without me telling you.

4. The Geneva Conventions are just stupid. They aren't ever enforced unless someone loses in entirety, and then it's just used to dehumanize and culturally cripple the offending nations. They aren't exactly helpful because no one follows them anyways. In the eyes of the governments of the world, Geneva Conventions really don't matter until you get caught if they matter at all. China regularly shits on them. I don't think most of Africa even knows about them. Trying to put rules into war really never works because you don't do what's right in a war; you do what wins a war(or fight). The US is hardly the only nation to ignore the Geneva Conventions. It wasn't the first, nor will it be the last.

[Dung]

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. Ok, how exactly was the dropping of the A bombs a betrayal? And who was it a betrayal against? And the other part of this that is underlined has to be about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Fighting the noble way? /facepalm, Grow up.

If you're asking, I'd say it was a betrayal to American ideals, to Japanese civilians, to concerned scientists as well...among others that I can think of.
Wars are for soldiers. It was not a military victory over an army. There was no fight, no fighting enemies, just very populated areas. That's as close to cowardice as possible in a war situation.
I take your suggestion to grow up in consideration though.

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2. How exactly did the A bombs cause terrible damage to the US reputation/image?

Have you travelled the world?

Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3. Sorry, this isn't true. Culturally they weren't beaten.They had suffered hard knocks, but you had very honorable high command military planning a coup d'etat right before the bombings and actually implementing it after the bombings. If that is defeated, we must have different definitions of the term. If the US was vengeful, so what? What nation entering a war as the attacked party doesn't go in with vengeance in mind? It's the reason war exists. People don't naturally pull a Jesus and let the attacker hit them again. And honestly, would you have preferred someone other than America or Great Britain dropping the A bomb? If the Soviets or Nazis had dropped the bomb, we would be living in a much different world that would be much worse for wear. Christ, Stalin didn't even have to drop a bomb to kill more people. He killed and affected millions of more people in the Ukraine before the war even started than those Japanese who were killed, injured, or permanently crippled by the A bomb. I assume you know how the Nazi side worked out without me telling you.

That doesn't address my point. I rather have no country dropping A bombs. It was a shame to use them against civilians. Japan was in effect already beaten militarily.

Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4. The Geneva Conventions are just stupid. They aren't ever enforced unless someone loses in entirety, and then it's just used to dehumanize and culturally cripple the offending nations. They aren't exactly helpful because no one follows them anyways. In the eyes of the governments of the world, Geneva Conventions really don't matter until you get caught if they matter at all. China regularly shits on them. I don't think most of Africa even knows about them. Trying to put rules into war really never works because you don't do what's right in a war; you do what wins a war(or fight). The US is hardly the only nation to ignore the Geneva Conventions. It wasn't the first, nor will it be the last.

Sure.

[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by Dung To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you're asking, I'd say it was a betrayal to American ideals, to Japanese civilians, to concerned scientists as well...among others that I can think of. Wars are for soldiers. It was not a military victory over an army. There was no fight, no fighting enemies, just very populated areas. That's as close to cowardice as possible in a war situation. I take your suggestion to grow up in consideration though. Have you travelled the world? That doesn't address my point. I rather have no country dropping A bombs. It was a shame to use them against civilians. Japan was in effect already beaten militarily. Sure.

1. What American ideals did it betray? How exactly does one betray the enemy who gleefully broke Geneva Conventions? The civilians were hardly all innocent either. Japanese war efforts helped business interests too. Why are you not bringing up the holocaust done by the Japanese? Who exactly are the scientists that were betrayed?

2. Yes quite often pre and post 9/11, also travelled quite a bit pre breakup of the Soviet Union. What's your point? I cam somewhat agree that the US name has been sullied over the last decade or so, but you haven't really connected the A bomb to any drop in US reputation. And it's kind of silly to say that 2 or 3 generations after a war, A Frenchman hates me and my country because of the dropping of the A bomb.

3. There were no fighting enemies? Are you ignorant of the fight in the Pacific? Or has wikipedia been changed or something? They still had a functioning army and a culture that was physically repulsed by surrender. If you don't think civilians would have been involved, you are ignorant of Japanese culture. The taking of Japan by the Allies would have been bloody business that would have killed just as many civilians and soldiers as an A bomb. You are familiar with the Japanese army units that never got picked up and basically functioned as if the war was still happening decades after WW2 had ended right?

4. Please tell me when the Geneva Conventions have been enforced on a country who wasn't beaten into submission or cared enough to stop doing what they were doing that got the monitors watching them in the first place.

[1Maddog]

	Originally Posted by MrFox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Best I can figure it - Harry Truman takes the prize for his cynically crass politically motivitated decision to spearhead the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine in 1947 - but I could be wrong (as an INTJ I feel compelled to acknowledge that it happens from time to time).

How does one compare Truman and the creation of Israel with, say, FDR's failure to complete WWII allowing the USSR and China to continue killing tens of millions of people, keeping thousands of German POW for a decade after the war as slave labor, triggering a cold war which would result in most of the active hostilities over the following decades (including most of the problems in the Middle East), triggering a staggeringly costly nuclear arms race, a staggeringly expensive space race, the imposition of and care and feeding of ruthless dictators throughout the world. And no, I don't mean just on the USSR side but both sides.

But could FDR have made any other decision? Would the public have supported any other decision? How about Truman?

And what of President James Buchanan, Jr. and his decisions which ultimately resulted in the Civil War a war so ghastly it altered the face of warfare for the US through the present. (Europe would not have this epiphany for a generation with WWI. A war so ghastly for Europe that it changed the fundamental fabric of Europe leading to secular humanism, fascism, and the decline and possible collapse of Europe we are now witnessing.)

What of the Nixon administration’s cynical willingness to ban DDT worldwide even though it knew and admitted it was not a problem pesticide? That act alone doomed one to two million people to die each year from malaria alone. At the top end that death toll could be 74 million placing Nixon in the rarified air alongside of super mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

No, I think the Middle East conflict is small potatoes compared to any of these. How many actually died in these conflicts? Likely only mere handfuls at most were killed in the Middle East when compared to the tens of millions above.

I am not sure these are even truly bad decisions. Difficult decisions and false decisions which only have one real choice are not the same as bad decisions. Bad decisions are when people make decisions with known outcomes and those outcomes are destructive.