For what it is worth

[gipper]

I haven't Wikipediaed the question, Ami, but according to the store of common knowledge I've acquired, the number of civilian deaths, and those long-term maimed, to die or not to die, literally dwarfed the military damage at either site. And I assert that there just had to be troop concentrations where the bomb(s) could "more acceptably" have been dropped. But what really muddies the waters (reflecting the thinking you identified by saying the US dropped the second bomb because the first did not cause surrender) is the clear and apparent attempt to induce surrender quickly in the wake of the bomb by striking a general fear in the ranks of both the military, but apparently crucially, also the civilians. By noting this latter set of facts, I don't cede without further discussion that the US had other (potent) options as to the use of the bomb, if it had to be used, that conceivably could have been played with equal military-political effect but without the comparable civilian devastation. And, as you tell, I don't use "military targets" in terms of degrading capability but rather in terms (and its horrible anyhow) as a matter of "propriety": combatants sign on to risk life and limb in a military conflict. This, of course, is basic, but our strategy clearly went beyond this to a spectacular and devastating civilian attack designed by its nature to compel capitulation.

[Amianthus]

From Wikipedia:

Choice of targets

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.

Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Further:

Events of August 7-9

After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.)

The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government and the War council were considering four conditions for surrender : the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation and delegation to the Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals.

The Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact on April 5. At two minutes past midnight on August 9, Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces launched an invasion of Manchuria. Four hours later, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan. The senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.

Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Michael Tee]

<<Armed and Dangerous is actually Eric S. Raymond . . . >>

I checked out the link.  Thank you.  Very interesting.  I have one of his books, as it happens, The New Hacker's Dictionary. I enjoyed it very much.  I've read some of his stuff on the internet without really noting his name, and it was excellent.  I've just never read any of his political stuff before.

Smart guy but he's way out to lunch.  Seems to have a comic-book understanding of history, a very violent disposition and a talent for rationalization that enables him to concoct superficially convincing justifications on a "historical" basis for the unleashing of unprecedented violence and suffering on the world.  Sounds like he's confused life with his favourite computer game.  Probably very appealing to 14-year-old boys with inferiority complexes.  Following this guy makes about as much sense as following Josef Goebbels.

[yellow_crane]

I also have a very simple prescription for those who concern themselves with "what to do" about "Muslim terror cells."  Stop fucking with their world and maybe they'll stop fucking with yours.

 


It is just that simple.

Fear-mongering and its current political efficacy by the Neocons seems to be on the wane, thanks to people like Pelosi, Edwards and others who actually refer to Neocon fear-mongering, though some people like the nonblinking, clueless imbibers of Fox propaganda, fascist bloggers like Eric, and push-button New Jersey barristers won't be waned, of course.

Some people simply cannot get beyond fear, and that manufactured by the Neocons and Libertarians is no exception.  Some people simply seem to quicken and come alive when given the chance to be overwhelmed by bogus fear.  It overshadows all the sins of omission, intellectual laziness, and any lack of creative application, and serves to obliterate any sensible controls over their emotions.  People who are quick to patriotism are such people.  It is just such people that the Neocons have depended upon to easily incinerate for their use.

It is much easier to be swept away by emotion than to think things through (which, let's face, causes angst and uncertainty--while strong, blind emotional commitment is easy, even reaffirming, and it gives the comfort of the crowd mentality, or mob reaction.   There is no sterling self-righteousness extant to exceed that of the mob in frenzy.  It usually takes a scapegoat to appease their inner need to end their emotional maelstrom.

It is specifically these sort--emotional mainliners--who patiently wait for some great operatic fear to come along, so that they can subscribe blindly and crazilly to full throttle emotional grip.  It is the whaler's boat now pulled into a Nantucket sleighride.   Justifies everything, and serves to intercept that pesky thing called ration.  This serves well when these carnivores need to hide an essential item from the argument--the COMMON good.

Libertarians usually try to prop up their emotionally elite, fascist cultism by boring their critics with hip-shot references to economists of all kinds, pretending that this current American fascist corporation metasticism is all about scientifically (if cherry-picked) economic theory as inevitablitliy rather than fascist elimination of critical examination (liberals), and, of course, their unchecked greed.

[Plane]

And what is the price for exaggerating that threat ....

My estimate is that the price for exaggerateing the threat and the price for minimiseing it are equal.

[Plane]

<<And those who wish to ignore history are thus doomed to repeat it   >>

Yeah but what about those who just make up history as they go along?

You provide a counterpoint to the actual history.

[Plane]

What Islamist nation?

Why would who develop them?

Pakistan for now, Iran when they get them.

Pakistan built theirs as a direct response to India.

Iran has Israel, Pakistan, India, as well as Russia very near it with nuclear weapons. Plus it serves as an obvious deterrent for any invasion by the United States.

Most nations who have nuclear weapons have never used them (beyond testing).

Pakistan built theirs as a direct response to India.

In response to India doing what?
Do we ave this in the right order?

Plus it serves as an obvious deterrent for any invasion by the United States.

I thoght you would say it was the only legitamate reason to invade , how did I get this idea?

[Plane]

I haven't Wikipediaed the question, Ami, but according to the store of common knowledge I've acquired, the number of civilian deaths, and those long-term maimed, to die or not to die, literally dwarfed the military damage at either site. And I assert that there just had to be troop concentrations where the bomb(s) could "more acceptably" have been dropped. But what really muddies the waters (reflecting the thinking you identified by saying the US dropped the second bomb because the first did not cause surrender) is the clear and apparent attempt to induce surrender quickly in the wake of the bomb by striking a general fear in the ranks of both the military, but apparently crucially, also the civilians. By noting this latter set of facts, I don't cede without further discussion that the US had other (potent) options as to the use of the bomb, if it had to be used, that conceivably could have been played with equal military-political effect but without the comparable civilian devastation. And, as you tell, I don't use "military targets" in terms of degrading capability but rather in terms (and its horrible anyhow) as a matter of "propriety": combatants sign on to risk life and limb in a military conflict. This, of course, is basic, but our strategy clearly went beyond this to a spectacular and devastating civilian attack designed by its nature to compel capitulation.

I think you are wrong about this , Japan had no purely military target isolated from civilians and suitable for atomic bombing by your standard.
Unless here was one I don't know anything about , this is a possibility.

What was the target you had in mind?

I beleive that Heroshima had been preserved with very little bombing for the sake of the A-bomb , the choice was not sudden.

[sirs]

The last entry here by Sirs (#16) is dead-on accurate about the threat we face, though, aside from killing active terrorist cells, Sirs and I differ on many of the methods to be used to most effectively address this curse.

"For what it's worth", and at the risk of being labeled Domer-like in my plausible arrogance, let me express an opinion and perception on my part.  I have great respect for anyone who can logically argue the reasons we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, who can substantively argue the merits of the bad decisions made during the war, most notably once Saddam was taken out.  I admire Domer on these positions, noting how (most of the time) he has been able to argue logically the reasons such decisions made by Bush have been deemed by him not just wrong, but nearly imbecilic.  I can respect that because he largely refrains from joining the pathetic & moronic Bush lied us into war bull crud crowd, and simply argues the merits of the decisions made in taking us into Iraq and in those decisions made post Saddam's demise.

Now, my perception about Domer appears to demonstrate that for him, diplomacy alone is all thats needed to deal with whatever military or global threats present themselves.  That we should have reached a civilized level in the year 2007, that war and death of civilians should no longer be tolerated in any form.  If an accurate perception, it's a very noble, albeit inaccurate sense of current reality.  Our enemies are just as evil and diabolical today as they were decades, even hundreds of years ago.  Evil itself is no different now than the dawn of man, simply more heavily armed, and even more willing to put innocent lives in front of them as shields.  No amount of diplomacy, even from the almighty Domer can root out such a mindset, especially that which permeates Islamofascism within militant Islam. 

Bush was right to take this war to them, vs waiting here on our shores until the next 911.  Bush was right to take out the WMD threat that nearly everyone believed Iraq was in providing such to Terrorist cells.  Yes, that's my opinion, and now, I'm likely in the minority if polled, yet my position has remained steadfast from the beginning, not swayed by polls, and based on the knowledge/intel we had at the time, and the grasp of the threat militant Islam poses that so many, even here, wish to bury their heads in the sand to.  I'm glad domer's on board as to recognizing that same threat I do, and maybe someday we'll even have a concensus on how to deal with it

[_JS]

In response to India doing what?
Do we ave this in the right order?

India became a nuclear nation in 1974 with what became known as "Smiling Buddha" (a reference to a Buddhist image that represents good luck). The atomic weapon was exploded at Pokhran and estimated to range between two to twelve kilotons. To put that in perspective, the original atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hioroshima were roughly around 20 kilotons.

Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. Interestingly, he was apprehended by both Dutch intelligence and MI-6 on two separate occasions, but both times released at the request of the United States.

Regardless, Pakistan developed their nuclear program as a direct response to India's program, which scared the hell out of them. They made their first test in 1998 (twenty-four years after India) at Chagai Hills in Baluchistan. AQ Khan was awarded "Hero of the Nation" status.

By the way, the United States and Canada aided India's nuclear weapons development in 1974. Canada helped by supplying the reactor and we helped by supplying the heavy water.

Do you find the order to be correct now?

I thoght you would say it was the only legitamate reason to invade , how did I get this idea?

Point of view. We don't have the manpower to invade Iran, to be bluntly honest. Though it might make an interesting academic exercise to think about it. If they already have such a weapon developed, wouldn't massing troops somewhere be a rather idiotic mistake?

I was merely pointing out Iran's reasons for developing such a weapon. I was not justifying them doing so. Certainly I would much rather see an entire world without any nuclear weapons.

The problem is that we are dealing with a technology of the 1940's. Can we realistically prevent the rest of the world from obtaining it for time eternal? And if that is the goal, is brute force really the way to go about doing so?

[_JS]

Now, care to answer mine?, since I couldn't help notice how it wasn't:   What is the price to be paid for not taking the militant Islamic threat seriously??  What is the price to be paid for egregiously minimizing the threat militant Islam poses?  What is the price to be paid in lives, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if we doom ourselves to repeat history?    I'm asking a perfectly fair question myself.  Pretend I'm right for a moment

I think there is a difference in minimizing the threat and looking at it realistically. We should not minimize the threat of militant Islamic groups, certainly. I believe I answered this earlier as no one wishes a repeat of any of the tragic bombings that we've seen.

Yet, we have to look at it realistically as well. Can we stop any disgruntled nut from running into a building with semtex strapped to his or her chest? Probably not. Moreover, the different terrorist groups are not all linked together as one central evil with one singular agenda.

NO, Or more accurately, highly unlikely, since we're not targeting "Islam"

That is not what the author of this article suggests.

[Amianthus]

Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry mostly as a result of A.Q. Khan, who was working for URENCO at the time of India's test. Khan helped Pakistan develop the quicker Zippe type centrifuges and became the head of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program.

Pakistan started working on their nuclear program in 1972.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program

[Michael Tee]

Further note on Eric S. Raymond, author of the piece that kicked off this thread.

Eric S. Raymond is a very bright, very provocative thinker and an extremely entertaining writer.  As I mentioned, I have a copy of his book, The New Hacker's Dictionary, and I'd recommend it to anyone with even a faint interest in hacker culture.

However, as I have just learned, Eric S. Raymond is also a person who has written that the reason why blacks commit more crimes than whites is that they are much less intelligent than whites.  I was personally disappointed to learn of this.

Eric S. Taylor has bought into racist ideology lock, stock and barrel.  This does't mean that his ideas on Muslims, the "clash of civilizations" or "terrorism" should be dismissed because of who he is.  They still have to be addressed, analyzed and evaluated like any other idea put forward on this board.  However, when it comes to Raymond's prescriptive ideas - - what SHOULD be done, where a moral choice is being proposed, I think it's important to know where that moral choice is coming from.  Who it's coming from.  Is it the moral choice of a decent human being, who values each and every other human being for what he or she actually is, or is it the moral choice of a white racial supremacist, a man whose take on another human being is determined first and foremost by the colour of his skin?  And if it is, do we want to make the same moral choice that he did?

[Xavier_Onassis]

So Xo, care to speculate how many thousands upon thousands of lives dropping the bomb saved, by preventing the impending invasion of Japan that was surely coming to a head??  You seem to be implying that the dropping of the 2 nuclear bombs over Japan was some stunt to inflict maximum casualties, for no apparent reason.  Notice how fast it brought the war to a conclusion, that wouldn't have otherwise occurred?

And you think that such a device in the hands of Iran would only be used in the same vane??
   
=======================================================================
I was not seeming to imply anything. I just stated that the USA is the ONLY country that has ever used atomic weapons. True, they were not entirely aware of the consequences to the civilian population.

I reject the idea that there was any need to invade Japan. One bomb would surely have sufficed to cause the Japanese to surrender.
Most historians have agreed that there was a communications breakdown between the US and Japan.

Observe that Japan's surrender did noit need to be unconditional, and it wasn't. The Japanese were permitted to keep the monarchy as well as the monarch.
And I do not think that Iran would use the bomb for any reason other than deterrence.

[Amianthus]

I reject the idea that there was any need to invade Japan. One bomb would surely have sufficed to cause the Japanese to surrender.
Most historians have agreed that there was a communications breakdown between the US and Japan.

The Soviets and the actions of the Japanese government at the time seem to disagree with you.