Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Going to echo the sentiment that shit needs to hit the fan and fall to pieces one way or another before anything will get better.  I don't think it has to be losing a war on home turf.  But it needs to be something that feels catastrophic and effects everybody.

I've had the sense for many years that America just became mentally ill after WW2.  The "Greatest Generation" that fought the war went on to create a political atmosphere that was obsessed with control and global military/economic dominance.  Then they spawned the baby boomers, who can really just be characterized as obnoxious spoiled reactionary brats.  If the Greatest are the people who turned America into the world police, then the boomers are your stereotypical cop's kid.

We've been spoiled and deluded by a long period of superpower status and material affluence, and the origin and nature of that status has been whitewashed by authorities for decades, while everyone else has been making honest efforts to mature.

Yeah no.  Most of our current political problems are due to poverty, and a shrinking middle class.  We aren't fat, we're starving.  What we need is better education and infrastructure, not more poverty or another enemy to blame everything on.  We've *had* war all this time, and it's just draining our resources and enriching profiteers.  The worse things get, the more desperate people throw their lot in with the conservatives.  Promise of riches for hard work, plenty of people to blame for everything, and old fashioned "safe" values like keeping women in kitchens.  These things appeal to people who have lost everything, ironically due to Neocon schemes.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with America, or any of its ethnic or cultural groups.  It's the neo-conservative ideology.  They *love* it when poor whites and poor blacks blame each other for everything.  They're the ones who profit over illegal immigration, that's why they want to keep it illegal - meanwhile poor white workers blame the poor Mexican workers for stealing all the jobs.

See?  The 99% keep fighting *each other*, and the neo-cons win every time.

I wasn't saying anything counter to this, and further back I even said that our biggest obstacle to change is the way our politics and media successfully divide us.

The sentiment I think you were missing is that the downward spiral you are describing isn't going to alter course until it hits some bottom level that serves as a massive wake-up call.  You described this downward spiral yourself.  People are tricked into voting against their own interests by their own desperations, which increases their desperation and so on.  We can't count on better education and infrastructure to break the cycle, because those things can't be obtained without breaking the cycle.

I wonder what that bottom level or perhaps rock bottom would look like.

[smeeprocket]

"collateral damage" is never an acceptable option.

Collateral damage is a smokescreen. The distinction between solider and civilian is essentially a lie, and all attempts at it have manged exactly nothing besides the sanctimonious delusion that some wars are a righteous endeavor.

Then we had our scientist go over there and observe the effects. Not treat them, just watch and see what happened to all of them.

The precise effects of nukes on human beings were not particularly known, but whatever. Their motives don't matter.

It sounds like you are just justifying atrocities. There were children killing themselves by jumping in front of trains after the bomb dropped, the effects on everyone was so horrific. Do you feel these children were just soldiers waiting to be armed?

[Cheeetar]

I believe the point he was making is that killing a civilian is immoral, and so is killing a soldier- not that killing a soldier is moral, and thus so is killing a civilian.

[smjjames]

Come on guys, Truman had a choice between a really horrible choice vs a horrible choice, NEITHER ONE was neccesarily a good option. Atrocities would have happened in either case. I'm not condoning either one, but facts are facts, Japan refused to surrender, so it was either a very, very bloody invasion on japanese soil or drop bombs on them which would have still killed many.

War makes people do desparate things.

[Helgoland]

Honestly, if the point was psychological, the Amero's could have nuked a purely military area, or even an empty field of some kind. Didn't HAVE to nuke a city.

Might not have had the same emotional effect, but if it went "field" and then "military base" along with wording to the effect "We'll keep ramping up until you surrender," I doubt it'd have taken much more...

They had very few bombs at the time...

"collateral damage" is never an acceptable option.

Collateral damage is a smokescreen. The distinction between solider and civilian is essentially a lie, and all attempts at it have manged exactly nothing besides the sanctimonious delusion that some wars are a righteous endeavor.

Then we had our scientist go over there and observe the effects. Not treat them, just watch and see what happened to all of them.

The precise effects of nukes on human beings were not particularly known, but whatever. Their motives don't matter.

It sounds like you are just justifying atrocities. There were children killing themselves by jumping in front of trains after the bomb dropped, the effects on everyone was so horrific. Do you feel these children were just soldiers waiting to be armed?

As far as I can tell he's saying that soldiers' lives are lives as well, and treating soldiers' deaths as qualitatively different than civilians' deaths is denying the inhumanity of all war.
And, as I said previously, the alternative would've involved civilian casualties as well - the precise number we cannot know, of course - and incurred a vastly higher blood toll on the military.

Also IIRC the two cities were major industrial centers and thus vital to Japan's war effort...

[smeeprocket]

I believe the point he was making is that killing a civilian is immoral, and so is killing a soldier- not that killing a soldier is moral, and thus so is killing a civilian.

the difference is, soldiers sign up for it, they know what they are getting into for the most part. That doesn't mean their deaths are acceptable, but they are aware of the risks.

[Helgoland]

I believe the point he was making is that killing a civilian is immoral, and so is killing a soldier- not that killing a soldier is moral, and thus so is killing a civilian.

the difference is, soldiers sign up for it, they know what they are getting into for the most part. That doesn't mean their deaths are acceptable, but they are aware of the risks.

What about the draft? Volunteer armies are a huge exception, you know. Once again, America (modern America) != World.

[smjjames]

We are astronomically far off topic guys, lol.

[Cheeetar]

Many soldiers are lied to- if people enlisting in the military truly knew what they were getting into, I think the average military size of nations would be vastly smaller.

[Zangi]

I disagree with this on all levels. "collateral damage" is never an acceptable option.

Then we had our scientist go over there and observe the effects. Not treat them, just watch and see what happened to all of them.

Well, an invasion would've killed even more civilians, so the nukes were the arguably more ethical choice... Especially considering that the long-term effects of exposure to radiation were ill-understood at the time.

That's an assumption we really can't prove because that is not the path the US took. But yea, this is far removed from the original topic.

It would likely have been a protracted war lasting years... probably would have become something similar to Vietnam 2.0...   And well, the war would also have end up grinding normal Japanese society to a halt.  A lot of civilians(and children[think of the children!]) would have died over those years.
On a technicality, most of the kills won't count as civilian...
That is if there was no other decisive war power that the US could bring upon Japan, if not nukes.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"collateral damage" is never an acceptable option.

Collateral damage is a smokescreen. The distinction between solider and civilian is essentially a lie, and all attempts at it have manged exactly nothing besides the sanctimonious delusion that some wars are a righteous endeavor.

Then we had our scientist go over there and observe the effects. Not treat them, just watch and see what happened to all of them.

The precise effects of nukes on human beings were not particularly known, but whatever. Their motives don't matter.

It sounds like you are just justifying atrocities. There were children killing themselves by jumping in front of trains after the bomb dropped, the effects on everyone was so horrific. Do you feel these children were just soldiers waiting to be armed?

I feel that the treatment of the situation is blatantly hypocritical by all parties. The nukes had little distinction when it comes to killing. Children were maimed, killed, and tortured all through World War II. Yet somehow when the source is a nuclear bomb it gains special recognition?

What I say is that restraint in war doesn't mean anything. Once you have chosen war at all your moral status has been chosen. The specifics don't make enough of a difference to change it.

I believe the point he was making is that killing a civilian is immoral, and so is killing a soldier- not that killing a soldier is moral, and thus so is killing a civilian.

the difference is, soldiers sign up for it, they know what they are getting into for the most part. That doesn't mean their deaths are acceptable, but they are aware of the risks.

Do they really? WWII was well in the draft era of warfare, but even outside of that people who get involved rarely understand the whole of the situation. While humans love fighting and killing, it is rare for a person to truly understand the whole of their choices when they are so severe as going to war is. After all, the culture of glorifying war is alive and well, even after it was long exposed as being mostly a lie.

[Rolan7]

We are astronomically far off topic guys, lol.

The space program is important!

[SalmonGod]

I think what MSH is getting at is that war has to harm civilians by necessity, because it's the only way for war to conclude itself.  It doesn't end when all the soldiers on one side or the other dies.  It ends when one side or the other loses its ability to continue producing soldiers to fight, or believes that it will lose that ability if it doesn't surrender, either by a demoralized populace or shattered infrastructure.  Either way, that involves harming civilians.

[smeeprocket]

I think perhaps my views on acceptable behavior during wartime (which should only happen in special circumstances, that was one) should be to avoid civilian death and not do things that are so horrific in nature, literally no one uses them after that. And really, we tend to try to pretend we are a moral nation, but we are not.

I don't think you can justify rampant murder with "war is hell and civilians need to die too"

[Xantalos]

That, and going to war with the intent to kill potentially millions of people for ideological or political or material gains/differences is enough of an atrocity that nuking can be justified if it'll just get it over with quicker.