60 years ago

[Stonehead]

 

I think it's overly optimistic and utopian to believe in perpetual peace. It seems that to maintain the peace would require draconian measures. It simply goes against how we are hardwired. Competition is innate in most biological organisms. Even in examples of symbiosis, the symbiont is typically an invader, e.g., zooanthella in corals, that the host seeks to digest.

 

Also, I'm not certain that the gender or sex thing would matter. Agricultural societies that were primarily matriarchal sometimes engaged in substitute sacrifice, e.g., sacrifice of humans to insure good crops. The reasoning is that the practice of agriculture takes from the earth so that the earth must be given something back in return. Widespread war is also associated with the development of these societies.

[JayB]

"Yet, is your security enhanced by your government’s policies of maintaining 10,000 nuclear weapons?"

 

The citizens of Nanking certainly would have been.

 

What I like best about these statements is the complete absence of context, both concerning the actions of Japan prior to the said bombing, and the remainder of the free world for the duration of the Cold War. In hindsight it's clear that what we really should have done is kick back and let the totalitarian societies develop a vastly superior nuclear arsenal. Imagine the progressive utopia that would have ensued.

 

It's really a shame that we had lightweights like Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, et all making decisions during these critical times. The world would have been in much better shape if there had only been a gaggle of activists running the show. Seriously.

[Stonehead]

I don't see it as a Japanese versus American or German versus British thing. I see it as governments run by older men who send young men to war. Industrialists often support the war effort, too.

 

I mentioned earlier about the 'innocents' but upon reflection I began to wonder since when has war been kinder and gentler? Was there ever a golden age of war where soldiers acted chivalrous? It's a myth, isn't it? War on a large scale has always been about 'total war' where the line between civilian and soldier blurs.

[Fairweather]

I've read that McArthur was furious about the bombings and felt that they somehow violated the soldier's code of conduct. I think LeMay and McArthur were polar-opposites with a common goal.

 

On another matter; a naval blockade of the japanese islands was under consideration. Starvation is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and an estimated 10 million civilians could have perished.

 

Starvation/Blockade?

Invasion?

Withdrawl???

 

I still believe Truman made the correct choice.

[JayB]

"I don't see it as a Japanese versus American or German versus British thing. I see it as governments run by older men who send young men to war. Industrialists often support the war effort, too."

 

True. If only we could have eliminated the industrialists and their products, replaced all three branches of government with 18-23 year olds, and faced the Germans, the Japanese, and the Soviets with old-men and home-made weaponry the free world would have been in much better shape.

 

Seriously though, I think your point was actually that most wars are far from just and necessary. My only objection would be to assuming that the converse is always true - clearly there are exceptions, foremost amongst them being the conflict in question.

[Stonehead]

Unconditional surrender by the Japanese government was seen as the primary goal.

 

However, the explosion of the nuclear bombs was quite a world spectacle. No wonder the hubbabub surrounding the launch of Sputnik in '57. The beginnings of the ICBM era...

[Stonehead]

Seriously though, I think your point was actually that most wars are far from just and necessary.

 

I'm not certain that that's a point that I actually hold in spite of what I've written. Wars are costly but what price progress, if we can call it that?

[mec]

However, the explosion of the nuclear bombs was quite a world spectacle. No wonder the hubbabub surrounding the launch of Sputnik in '57. The beginnings of the ICBM era...

 

are you suggesting that the space program has been focused on weapons development/deployment (even if it is not NASA's stated goals?)

[Stonehead]

However, the explosion of the nuclear bombs was quite a world spectacle. No wonder the hubbabub surrounding the launch of Sputnik in '57. The beginnings of the ICBM era...

 

are you suggesting that the space program has been focused on weapons development/deployment (even if it is not NASA's stated goals?)

 

No, not explicitly.

 

This is like art. I don't 100% research everything. I put things together. Sometimes it makes sense but that doesn't mean it's true. Sometimes it totally fucking wrong but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. There's a little bit of an element of truth in every statement. Sometimes more truth but it's contingent on following a certain path of thought.

 

So yeah, there's probably a strong military component to the space program, indirectly or directly. For example, map-making. Cruise missiles, I believe, rely on an accurate representation of the earth's surface.

[mec]

GPS is another great example beyond map-making. It was for military use only until its capabilities slipped out (by Reagon I believe).

 

However, from that argument we can argue that most technology is then be a basis for war. Computers, aircraft, medicine (biotech weapons), communication, materials (spectra is used in protective vests), etc. Most new, high tech stuff is used by the military in some way. So are we all working on components for the military?

[Stonehead]

ARPANET

[SemoreJugs]

Soooo, I guess what See More Jugs is saying is: Women on Top!

 

Pretty. fucking. sexy.

So to speak.

[j_b]

the horrors of ww2 that are cited repeatedly to justify owning the arsenal to commit furhter atrocities didn't emerge out of a vaccuum (and then, you pretend to be concerned about context, lol). by the time the ultranationalists had been whipped into a frenzy by demagogues the world over, of course, it was freaking too late. these conflicts have little to do with the nature of the enemy or the way we are hardwired, but everything to do with competition over power, resources, etc ... as long as nincompoops like you keep invoking the demon in the enemy to justify our own demons, we are in a world of trouble. so there!

[cj001f]

So yeah, there's probably a strong military component to the space program, indirectly or directly. For example, map-making. Cruise missiles, I believe, rely on an accurate representation of the earth's surface.

How about missile technology, you know, the reason behind the space race? That we were scared shitless that the russians had the capability to launch missiles and blow us to kingdom come without any means to counter? It's called "dual-use" technology for a reason.

 

As for the retard arguing that technology is the basis for war, buy a clue. A good portion of modern technology originated or was substantially advanced by military/defense research. The internet, IC's, the jet engine, radar, nautical propulsion, the list goes on.