falxori 0
Recommended Posts
contrary to popular belief, an apologist is not someone issuing an apology (ie, expressing regret for a blame-worthy action). An apologist is someone issuing an explanation of something.QuoteFirst of all, I reject the term "apologists". No apology is needed for defeating an enemy who started the war with their own illegal and unwarranted aggression in a surprise attack.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 3,078
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Oh, and if America was so darned quick to pull the nuclear trigger, why
> didn't we use them in Korea during the dark days of the Pusan perimeter >or the Chosin Reservoir . . . .
Same reason we wouldn't nuke Tijuana, even if we were at war with Mexico. Nuking your neighbor (or the neigbor of your ally) is generally a bad idea.
>Could it be that your America-bashing theory is bunk?
I don't have an america-bashing theory, just the fact that the US is the only country, ever, to use nuclear weapons against civilians. Spin that as humanitarian all you want; in the end, we nuked civilians to end a war faster, and we would be hypocrites to condemn others for doing the same.
> didn't we use them in Korea during the dark days of the Pusan perimeter >or the Chosin Reservoir . . . .
Same reason we wouldn't nuke Tijuana, even if we were at war with Mexico. Nuking your neighbor (or the neigbor of your ally) is generally a bad idea.
>Could it be that your America-bashing theory is bunk?
I don't have an america-bashing theory, just the fact that the US is the only country, ever, to use nuclear weapons against civilians. Spin that as humanitarian all you want; in the end, we nuked civilians to end a war faster, and we would be hypocrites to condemn others for doing the same.
By that argument, we would be hypocrites to criticize any nation that doesn't offer equal rights to its citizens. We had slavery, no suffrage for women, etc.
Civilian casualties have been a fact of war since WWII. Driven more by the Nazis and Japanese than anyone else. There is no special moral chip that America has to bear for Truman's valid decision in 1945.
Civilian casualties have been a fact of war since WWII. Driven more by the Nazis and Japanese than anyone else. There is no special moral chip that America has to bear for Truman's valid decision in 1945.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThere is no special moral chip that America has to bear for Truman's valid decision in 1945.
But you also can't condemn others for doing the same thing.
Which scenario are we talking about that you would consider the "same thing?" A nuke dropped now threatens a nuclear escalation, a global threat that did not exist in 1945.
I'm struggling to find a situation even remotely similar, esp as delivery systems and yeilds have ramped up. Chernobyl emitted 6 times as much radiation as Hiroshima.
In any event, I've condemned no one. I expect each nation to play out the game theory which nearly always says that the smart play is not to do it.
I'm struggling to find a situation even remotely similar, esp as delivery systems and yeilds have ramped up. Chernobyl emitted 6 times as much radiation as Hiroshima.
In any event, I've condemned no one. I expect each nation to play out the game theory which nearly always says that the smart play is not to do it.
falxori 0
Quotesmart play is not to do it.
problem is not all countries are smart and responsible...
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
billvon 3,078
> By that argument, we would be hypocrites to criticize any nation that
> doesn't offer equal rights to its citizens. We had slavery, no suffrage for
>women, etc.
We would surely be hypocrites if we defended our practice of owning slaves and condemned others for doing the same. Instead, we now realize that slavery was one of the bigger mistakes we made, and have since both rectified the problem and ensured it wouldn't happen again.
> doesn't offer equal rights to its citizens. We had slavery, no suffrage for
>women, etc.
We would surely be hypocrites if we defended our practice of owning slaves and condemned others for doing the same. Instead, we now realize that slavery was one of the bigger mistakes we made, and have since both rectified the problem and ensured it wouldn't happen again.
We haven't nuked anyone again either, so what's the difference?
QuoteQuotesmart play is not to do it.
problem is not all countries are smart and responsible...
60 years of history says otherwise. Unless leadership is suicidal or no longer interested in holding power (something clearly not shown by Hussein or OBL), self interest will prevail.
Whether or not Iran thinks it's morally ok to nuke Israel, it fears the retalition both from your country and from others (namely the US). While it has much more landmass than Israel, it would still only take a handful of bombs to take out a majority of the people and assets.
falxori 0
QuoteWhether or not Iran thinks it's morally ok to nuke Israel, it fears the retalition both from your country and from others (namely the US). While it has much more landmass than Israel, it would still only take a handful of bombs to take out a majority of the people and assets
no argue there.
i do not think Iran will nuke anyone as soon as they can.
my fear, as i've mentioned in other posts, is that nukes or other radioactive materials will find their way into the hands of groups with no return address...
and countries like Iran who openly call for the destruction of other countries and who arm and support such groups are a major threat.
O
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
that is the new $52B question in proliferation studies - does MAD fail for nationless factions?
I tend to side with those who think the old principles still apply, esp with the object lessons applied to Afghanistan's Taliban and to Hussein. Open support of such groups can get you in trouble. Obviously it's less certain than it is for a group that has a capitol city.
I think Iran only wants a nuclear arsenel to protect its borders. Trying to coax them to stop is unlikely to work with the stance the US has taken of late.
I tend to side with those who think the old principles still apply, esp with the object lessons applied to Afghanistan's Taliban and to Hussein. Open support of such groups can get you in trouble. Obviously it's less certain than it is for a group that has a capitol city.
I think Iran only wants a nuclear arsenel to protect its borders. Trying to coax them to stop is unlikely to work with the stance the US has taken of late.
billvon 3,078
>We haven't nuked anyone again either, so what's the difference?
No sane person defends our former keeping of slaves as a good idea. Most conservatives defend our use of nukes against civilians as a good idea.
No sane person defends our former keeping of slaves as a good idea. Most conservatives defend our use of nukes against civilians as a good idea.
once you've realized that, you're allowed to read it all you want
yeap, he's supposed to come at the end of april.
its ok, i'm going jumping in russia next july, so we're even...
O
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites