The Lava Trolley: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum!

The Lava Trolley

Or is it the lavatory???

...Either case, this little nook on blogasphere is the natural dumping ground for the sort of crap that erupts
when you find a wee Chink in the Britworks...

But hey, I promise you this is steamingly hot shit...which is probably why it's all looking a bit brown!

 

31 August 2005

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum!

pic74
"If you wish peace, prepare for war."

That was allegedly the motto (albeit paradoxical) when the US and UK went blazing into Iraq two years ago. And I question whether this 'destroy them before they destroy us' philosophy was the true motivation behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I was brought up to believe that WWII would not have ended had the atomic bombs not been dropped, and that such destruction on a massive scale was indeed necessary to prevent even more loss of lives (presumably on the side of the Allies).

But then again, there is also the argument that the war would have ended a hell of a lot sooner (and possibly without use of the atomic bombs) if the Americans had put in a little more effort in the first place.

Of course, there is no way we would now know, and any theory critics would come up with can only be conjecture. However, despite all the atrocities the Japanese had committed (especially against those of my racial heritage, though compensation for war crimes, particularly to comfort women, is another debate), there is something about the whole event that doesn't sit right in my gut.

pic80

pic79

It would appear from various sources, that the Allied Forces insisted on unconditional surrender, a similar white flag which had already been raised by Germany, whilst the Japanese were adamant that their emperor be allowed to remain where he was - on the throne.

Unfortunately, negotiations broke down...partly because the terms stipulated on both sides were hazy...and the rest, as they say, is history.

pic76

But could more have been done? Could both sides not have worked a little harder at peace?

Documents reveal that Japan was perfectly happy to discuss options over the table, and that it was only a small fraction of the government which was in opposition...namely Minister Anami and cohorts. However, Truman was pressured into making a move to pacify his people over the Pearl Harbour attacks. There was just that small matter of dishing out some revenge with a good helping of stars and stripes...American pride was at stake, and it's payback time!

Hmmm...Now, where have we heard all that before?

pic77

"How could a president, or the others charged with responsibility for the decision, answer to the American people if... after the bloodbath of an invasion of Japan, it became known that a weapon sufficient to end the war had been available by midsummer and was not used?"

And then, there was Stalin, and the threat of Russian Occupation...Basically, the Japs were down to making a decision between two evils...Not much of a choice really.

"This was in fact a race with the Russians. The bomb was to announce to the world American superiority. It would also stop any Russian advance against Japan and create a situation, as happened, in which the US would dominate the occupation of Japan."

According to popular opinion, Japan would have fought to the bitter end, even if it meant sacrificing everyone, right down to the last man, woman and child...Anything but surrender...I don't doubt the depth of Japanese patriotism, but had that been true, even the bombs would not have stopped them.

And indeed, that was very nearly true...until Emperor Hirohito intervened. Would he have stepped in if negotiations had lasted just a little while longer?

"It is fantasy, not history, to believe that the end of the war was at hand before the use of the atomic bomb."

Maybe not, but it could still have ended differently.

Japan had already lost its greatest ally, was attempting peace talks, and that they would eventually have capitulated was only a matter of time.

Furthermore, the bombs were dropped with absolutely no warning...I begin to wonder if Japan would have been brought to heel much quicker had they known the US were seriously intending to use the bomb if that (and a big IF at that) was what it would take to end the war.

Personally, I see more similarities between the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and 9/11, than I do between the terrorist attacks and Pearl Harbour (which was more of a military base). I'm sure even Muslim fanatics are under the impression that they have no other option apart from terrorist tactics.

We're talking about about the total obliteration of cities...Faster than you can say 'ker-boom', hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and that of innocent children were extinguished...And of those who survived, many are still suffering from radiation effects today.

pic75

The Allies had managed to gain the upper hand. Dropping the bombs was too much like kicking a man who's already down.

pic78

There is no honour in that.

But hey, who's talking about honour...It's war....And all's fair in love and war, right? Casualties are to be expected...So long as those casualties belong to the side of the enemy, because our lives are worth more than theirs.

Is there any culture which isn't guilty of this attitude?

There is no denying that the consequences of WWII are far-reaching (and the victims are to be sympathised)...but that war belonged to the last millennium with most of its perpetrators either dead or about to die, and yet, here we are, still unable to let go...

The anniversary marking the end of the war was a good example of this fixation with the past, bringing about more controversy over whether Japan has suffered enough, demands for 'proper atonement' (Methinks what will that achieve?), blood, blood, and more blood...so the cycle continues...

And we wonder why human beings can't live together without trying to annihilate one another...

Relevant Articles:
Hiroshima Arguments Rage 60 Years On

Korean WWII Sex Slaves Fight On
Japan's Problem Over the Past
Was Hiroshima Necessary?
War Crimes - Have We Learnt Anything?

Recommended Readings:
Japan War Crimes
Doug Long's Guides

Forum:
Should America Have Dropped the A-Bombs?

Labels: ,

29 Comments:

  • At 4/9/05 17:04, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I enjoy reading the stories on your site. Keep up the super articles!

    viagra

     
  • At 4/9/05 17:12, Blogger Charme said…

    Hey thanks! All the best to you too...whoever and wherever you are! :-)

     
  • At 4/9/05 17:16, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is a excellent blog. Keep it going. Don't miss visiting this site about catholic news regarding information on catholic news

     
  • At 4/9/05 17:28, Blogger REI UBU-KOWISKI said…

    Any form of socio-politico-economico imposition must be moved away to give esapaço to dialogues it and confraternização between the peoples this land is of all and of nobody we are temporary of a train that stops and go down and despois continue its trip to take new travellers. However, it has moments where certain governments do not understand this begin of convivência and then the disasters and the wars occur, where most fragile it is that it suffers and paid the price for the powerful ones. Excellent text. Congratulations. Sáude and peace!

     
  • At 4/9/05 17:30, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Your site is very good!
    Congratulations!

    insurance

     
  • At 4/9/05 17:32, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    News a la carte a growing Internet trend
    Published: Sunday, Sep. 4, 2005 NEW YORK J.D. Lasica used to visit 20 to 30 Web sites for his ... The Post and Knight Ridder Digital, meanwhile, are redesigning Web sites to spread elements previously found only on home pages.
    Great Blog! I'll be Back! If you have time go see my car fuel saver related site. Visit it Soon. Thank You.

     
  • At 4/9/05 19:08, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    US put forth a little more effort? The entire country was behind the war. Everything was rationed. True, we didn't get in until late because we were fostering a hands-off approach to the rest of the world. We didn't come in until we were attacked though it is said that Roosevelt wanted to jump in a lot earlier. We were dealing with a depression at the time. It didn't end until WWII though Roosevelt was doing a great job trying to stimulate the economy. So I have no idea where that "a little more effort' came from.

    As to the bomb, I think it was right in that case. You forget that we dropped them on two different occasions. We gave Japan the opportunity to surrender after the first one. They declined. We even warned them again and again that we had this destructive weapon and would use it unless hey surrendered. They refused. I think there is no way we could have accepted a conditional surrender. Japan was way too destructive. And the Emporer really did need to be removed. I mean, seriously, it was the 20th century. Cut out the 'divine right' way of thinking. We're still waiting for you guys to boot out your monarchy. Doesn't Japan still have some sort of a dynasty left anyway? I thought I readm somewhere about the heir choosing a bride a while ago.

    There was a plan to invade Japan called X day. I saw part of it on history or discovery channel. The thing is, I'm sure it would have been successful. It's just that the Allies recources were quite depleted. And it involved almost all US troops. Do you think there would have been any less casualties considering the Japanese would have fought every man, woman, and child?

     
  • At 5/9/05 15:18, Blogger Charme said…

    “True, we didn't get in until late because we were fostering a hands-off approach to the rest of the world.”

    A little late?

    You just made my point for me…That was precisely what I was on about.

    “We were dealing with a depression at the time.”

    Big deal…The Great Depression affected everyone. How do you think the rest of the world was doing getting their arses kicked?

    “Japan was way too destructive.”

    And dropping the A-Bombs wasn’t?

    “And the Emporer really did need to be removed.”

    So you think that’s a good reason to kill thousands of people?

    By the way, you have to remember that the Japanese had their own power struggles to consider. The emperor was actually in favour of peace, but a faction of his government (NOT the party in power) opposing his decision staged a rebellion (which was later put down).

    Furthermore, one reason Japan did not initially respond to US threats was because they were still awaiting correspondence from Russia (bearing in mind that they already were being hammered by the Reds left, right, and centre) regarding mediation. And you have to take into account the shock after an entire city disappeared in flames.

    “I think there is no way we could have accepted a conditional surrender.”

    As I have said before, it was a matter of pride and revenge, not necessity.

    “We're still waiting for you guys to boot out your monarchy.”

    Eh? What has this got to do with OUR monarchy?

    *Sigh* We’ve been through this before. Take a deep breath before you go off on one. There’s no need to take this personal. It’s not like anyone’s blaming you. In fact, WWII happened way before you were born. I am merely venturing my opinion which I am perfectly entitled to.

    And as for the system of monarchy being outdated, I’d like to point out that the term is just a fancy name for another kind of government…How is your President and his Cabinet any different than a ruler of a country surrounded by his or her ministers? It’s all pomp and grandeur, but in essence there are many similarities in both political structures. Besides, everyone knows the Queen’s just a figurehead. (Read my essay on the Role of the Monarchy - http://babbie-wasabie.mindviz.com/story.html?pk=49 )…Evidence that the majority of the UK population is in favour of the monarchy only demonstrates that our country is a democracy. Personally, I don’t see anything to complain about…So what if it’s sooooo last century…It just shows that the UK has history.

    You know, people are starting to make me wonder if supporting the A-Bomb destruction is meant to be definitive of THIS era?

    “Cut out the 'divine right' way of thinking.”

    That’s hardly the case in Japan now, is it?

    “And it involved almost all US troops.”

    Hmmm…That's the crux of the matter, isn't it?

    “Do you think there would have been any less casualties considering the Japanese would have fought every man, woman, and child?”

    The Bushido Code applied mainly to the military. That’s why they DID surrender after the US levelled two of their major cities. If every single Japanese citizen really wanted a fight to the death, they would not even have bothered to negotiate peace at all!

    You know I’ve never been an advocate for the ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ philosophy, but are you seriously telling me that you are completely unfazed by the images of dying babies and children in the aftermath of attacks on Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Can you really look at them and think, “Oh well, it’s war. Shit happens.” ‘Cos if you are, you’re just validating the attack on Pearl Harbour. The Japs prolly had the same idea.

    Sure, they were playing dirty…But so was the US in dropping the A-Bombs. It was ‘an eye for an eye’, although ‘you step on my toe, and I’ll step on two of yours’ would be a little more accurate.

     
  • At 6/9/05 18:50, Blogger Owen said…

    Those are very poignant photos. And I do agree with the quote, but I disagree with using it in Iraq. The bomb was necessary in WWII...or at least to end the war as quickly as it did. That pretty much finished everything off and kept it from going on for years.

     
  • At 7/9/05 19:10, Blogger Charme said…

    That it did...that it did...

    No one is disputing the fact that dropping the A-Bombs was a deciding factor in ending WWII...Although my point is that THAT wasn't the main reason the two cities were blasted into smithereens (I was going to say 'atoms', but figured that would be too tasteless!)

    And as already mentioned, if the US had joined in a lot earlier, A-Bombs might not even have come into the equation...Whether the war would have continued for much much longer if the bombs hadn't been used is still a matter of opinion however...Otherwise, we wouldn't all be here having this discussion, would we?

     
  • At 8/9/05 14:43, Anonymous coolflame said…

    Interesting author of an interesting blog. Off-topic, I'm curious about you. Why 'atoms' is so tasteless? What about the words like Nuclear, Sex, Fuck ? N-Bombs? S*x ? F*** ? Just a few examples.

     
  • At 8/9/05 14:58, Blogger Charme said…

    The word 'atoms' isn't tasteless on it's own, but I wasn't too sure if a pun on this subject would be appreciated...We are afterall, talking about a tragedy, and I've never been comfortable making jokes about such things, though some might say it comes under the umbrella of dark humour...Personally, words like 'fuck', 'sex', etc, don't bother me...Perhaps it's because they've now become less taboo, and we've all been de-sensitized.

     
  • At 10/9/05 23:17, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    You confuse me. The US is condemned for puting our nose where it doesn't belong. You say we don't belong in Iraq (and i'm not advocating here) but then you say we should have jumped into a war that didn't involve us at the time. I'm not saying isolationism was right. And I'm not saying it was wrong either. I think it was a period we went through and I think it's the reason we are so involved now in the world. Because we were so condemned for not jumping into WWII earlier, we jump in everytime someone kicks up some sand now. Make up your mind.

    Of course I'm saddened by pictures of hurt and dying people. I'm human. But you asking a question about warfare. The war had gone on way too long and needed to end. Plus there is some confusion as to if the US government was really aware of the affects of radiation. I tend to be a little suspicious about the claim to ignorance. But it does stand to reason that the cause of everyone's fear in using the bomb is because we were so shocked at the utter distruction. It was dropped to end the war quickly and it did so.

    Also, I linked to the comfort women you indicated in your comentary. I had no idea that was going on. Interesting how that wasn't covered in history class.

    one more thing. The difference between president vs. queen. We get rid of Dopey after four years. You guys are stuck with that family forever. And you spend tax dollars supporting generations of idiots. That's the difference.

    Always enjoy talking with you, Charme.

     
  • At 11/9/05 12:29, Blogger Charme said…

    "The US is condemned for puting our nose where it doesn't belong. You say we don't belong in Iraq (and i'm not advocating here) but then you say we should have jumped into a war that didn't involve us at the time."

    Sweetie, the war DID involve you guys...That's why it's called a WORLD war?

    Do not make comparisons between now and before, because it was Hitler and his allies who started the last one, whereas in Iraq, it was the Americans who jumped the gun...and it was OBVIOUS other countries were not involved on the SAME SCALE as WWII. Did you think Hitler and Japan would have invaded the rest of the world leaving ONLY the US intact???

    Get real!

    "Also, I linked to the comfort women you indicated in your comentary. I had no idea that was going on. Interesting how that wasn't covered in history class."

    Well, that's history for you. Japanese school children were not taught that either...Same way American kids are taught that WWII started later than it really did.

    "The difference between president vs. queen. We get rid of Dopey after four years. You guys are stuck with that family forever."

    You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, are you?

    The President has executive power. The Queen doesn't. It really IS that simple.

    As for the same family ruling for years...That's open to debate as monarchs have been known to be usurped from time to time...same as all other rulers. It is always the population who has the power...Why get rid of someone who has been doing a good job? You're telling me that presidents don't get voted back into office if the American people are happy with the way he runs the country? That's even sillier.

    "And you spend tax dollars supporting generations of idiots."

    We spend tax pounds to upkeep estates which are tourist attractions, so it benefits our economy...I have no objection there...We would have to do that even if we got rid of the Royal Family as these locations are national treasures.

    Contrary to what most believe, we do not have to pay for the Windsor's daily expenditure. The Queen has her own private wealth for that. And even if we were, it's still no skin off my nose, because the one who holds the purse strings is ultimately the one in power...as everyone could see from what happened to Charles I & II.

     
  • At 13/9/05 03:36, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    Charles 1 and II? What happened?

    Okay, let's respond here. First I'm not comparing Iraq and and WWII. I'm comparing the rather hypocrisy of you should have jumped in then but not now. The war did not involve us at the time. We were not under attack. And well, let's face it. Europe had quite a history of long, drawn out wars. I'm sure that's why we did not get involved when the war actually started. And yes, they did teach that in our history class. At least in my class. There was a distinct difference between when the war started and when we jumped in. Do you think we should have declared war when UK was attacked? Well, perhaps you are correct in that. We could argue that our effort would not have been as strong fighting for someone else. I think we all agree that Pearl Harbor is what strengthened our resolve to win. Of course this was before we knew (or at least before the public knew) what was going on in those camps.

    "And as for the system of monarchy being outdated, I’d like to point out that the term is just a fancy name for another kind of government…How is your President and his Cabinet any different than a ruler of a country surrounded by his or her ministers? It’s all pomp and grandeur, but in essence there are many similarities in both political structures."

    My comment about the queen and president was in answer to this. Of course I know that the president has real power and the queen just sits on the house of lords, correct? I still think it's outdated and certainly compromises other nations view of the UK. It certainly has affected mine. She's the subject of your National Anthum for godsake. 'God save the queen." She lives in a big house with guards, servants and such. As Izzard would say, 'that's one saved fucking queen."

    Happy people equals another term? Well, you obviosly are not aquainted with the American politics. And I'll agree with you before hand, it's fucked up. One, there is a limit to terms. First it was a custom started by Washington, two terms. And then FDR came along. He was elected four times but did die in his fourth term. After that they made it law. A president can serve only two terms or a maximum of ten. ie. vice president takes over office after death or other of president for two years then he can run for two terms if he so wishes. But the real kicker is the electoral college. What people forget is our fore-fathers did not really thing the general, ignorant public could elect a leader. so they fashioned a popular vote to shut everyone up. that vote determines who of the electoral college can vote. And the electoral college actually determines the president. Presidents have lost the popular vote but one the electoral college and therefore won the presidency. John Quincy Adams being one. The real way it fucks us up is because each state has so many members of the college and that's how they campaign. A slight win in a few states could mean winning the election. That's how we ended up with dopey. So yes, we can get a president we didn't ask for. Silly? No, it's a travisty of the spirit of the constitution.

     
  • At 13/9/05 20:11, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    correction **

    a president can serve two terms or eight years. There is a specail circumstance where he can serve ten years. If he was vice president and was forced to step up after a president has died/impeached/resigned and finished the rest of that term of no more than two years. Then he/she would be able to serve two terms of their own. that's ten years total.

     
  • At 14/9/05 12:57, Blogger Charme said…

    "Charles 1 and II? What happened?"

    Charles I got his head chopped off because Parliament didn't like what he was doing.

    It's a long story which you can get from here -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

    Charles II had loads of problems with Parliament as well because they held the purse strings. However, it has to be said that he fared far better than his father, and it's not just because he kept his head!

    Again, more here -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

    "Okay, let's respond here. First I'm not comparing Iraq and and WWII. I'm comparing the rather hypocrisy of you should have jumped in then but not now."

    And I explained why I didn't think it was hypocritical in that situation.

    The war wasn't just in Europe, but in Asia as well...As said before, it was the only war on such a massive scale, even compared to WWI. That much was pretty obvious. And I'm sure US intelligence had a fair idea of Hitler's/Japan's 'take over the world' plans even before your base was attacked...After all, everyone else did, and I have enough faith in US military to believe they had equal capacity in fishing for such information...There was sufficient evidence that Hitler was a madman who had to be stopped. If I'm not mistaken, the US did actually send some troops in to help the Allies, but had they mobilised more of their forces, Pearl Harbour would probably not have been bombed.

    However, if you want to accuse the British of hypocrisy, I would not deny that it's not unwarranted, given our checkered history. The US would probably not even exist in its current form had it not been for the English's propensity for global expansion (even if we didn't achieve it in quite the same fashion as Hitler).

    "My comment about the queen and president was in answer to this. Of course I know that the president has real power and the queen just sits on the house of lords, correct? I still think it's outdated and certainly compromises other nations view of the UK. It certainly has affected mine. She's the subject of your National Anthum for godsake. 'God save the queen." She lives in a big house with guards, servants and such. As Izzard would say, 'that's one saved fucking queen." "

    That's a good one...LOL...I do sometimes enjoy certain digs at the monarchy, not because they exist, but because they could do with being a tad more aware of what's around them, like their Danish counterparts.

    Our monarchy is no more archaic than your Pledge of Alliance which features 'God' somewhere in it. (And incidentally, would you argue that democracy is just as out-dated, simply because it has its roots in ancient Greece?) Personally, I believe that religion and politics do not mix. I prefer a more secular form of government. On the other hand, I think it's merely a religious front that the US puts up, and that God doesn't really have all that much say when your cabinet of ministers (or whatever you call them) makes decisions in the day-to-day running of the country.

    Still, who cares how old a system is, so long as it works? I think we've got a good compromise between tradition and modernity.

    If you'd read my essay on the monarchy (see one of my previous posts for the link), you'd see that the Royal Family has its uses. That's the only reason it's been allowed to remain as part of politics, even if its part is only a small (but significant) one. For instance, it was the Queen who managed to soothe global relations when Thatcher and cohorts clashed with other members of the Commonwealth in the 80s. It does show that other countries do have a certain amount of respect for the English monarchy.

    Besides, who would we gossip about? Hmmm...Jordan perhaps? Or maybe Posh and Becks? Oooh...more fodder for the tabloids. I'm so glad I don't work for them.

    "Happy people equals another term?"

    Huh? All I meant is that if the President is doing a good job, there's no reason for him not to remain in power. Blair has been around for ages here (but I believe there is a maximum term as well), and hasn't been voted out yet...though if I had anything to say about it, he'd not be in 10 Downing Street for long!!!

    "Well, you obviosly are not aquainted with the American politics."

    That's one reason I was asking you...I know about as much of your politics as you do about ours. I can't know everything, though I'm always willing to learn.

    "And I'll agree with you before hand, it's fucked up."

    No, I don't think your government is fucked up. There are pros and cons for everything, and I'm sure there have been instances when your leaders have done great things to be proud of.

    Anyhow, my point is that whoever it is who rules a country, you'll find that in most cases, the true power resides in the population.

     
  • At 14/9/05 20:32, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    Actually, I agree about the Pledge to the flag. It's a symbol "and symbols for the simple minded" [george carlin]. I stopped pledging when i was 17 because I don't worship a symbol. My respect lies with the constitution. I do love so much about my government but I don't agree with the electoral college. Perhaps there was a time when it served it's purpose but that time has passed....... kind of like work unions.

    I've looked at it from every angle and I still don't think there is any way we could have known the extent of Hitler's madness. I think you guys could say the same thing. Didn't your king at the time (the one who abdicated his thrown) visit Germany and express admiration for their airforce? Again, i don't have the exact date but i believe it was just a few years before the war started for you. The camps were a complete surprise. Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise. We didn't know exactly how evil those countries were at the time.

    I think people need to realize that it's fine to say 'what if' but we're not there right now. We weren't there then and we don't know what pressures those leaders were under. Roosevelt was dying. Our troops were depleted along with our recourses. We had a chance to end it all and to end it quick without further loss of American lives. We took it. Think about it for one second. If the US hadn't bombed Japan, where would we all be now? Would Japan had been allowed to surrender but still build up an army? Would they be such a financial power if their recourses went into military as well? Would the world be so careful about nuclear power and who is allowed to have it? And, how many years do you think someone would have waited before the bomb was dropped on someone else? Would we be so careful if we didn't know the amount of distruction?

     
  • At 14/9/05 20:46, Blogger Charme said…

    "I think you guys could say the same thing. Didn't your king at the time (the one who abdicated his thrown) visit Germany and express admiration for their airforce?"

    So? That was before any invasion started. The war started in 1939...You're telling me that in all those years before Pearl Harbour was attacked the US military had absolutely NO inkling whatsoever of Hitler's intentions?

    Personally, I find that very hard to believe.

    By the way, it was Edward VIII, I think. The one who married a certain Mrs Simpson.

    "If the US hadn't bombed Japan, where would we all be now? Would Japan had been allowed to surrender but still build up an army? Would they be such a financial power if their recourses went into military as well? Would the world be so careful about nuclear power and who is allowed to have it?"

    Yes, it's a lot of 'what if's...That's why it's all debatable. Nothing can be proven now...we can only speculate.

    My stance is that dropping the A-Bombs was unwarranted and was an utter waste of lives. It may have been the practical thing to do, but not terribly honourable. (I still question the necessity of it.) However, you're right about one thing. We've not had another World War since. Still, you don't wait till someone gets burnt before you realise that playing with fire is dangerous.

     
  • At 15/9/05 20:53, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    "Still, you don't wait till someone gets burnt before you realise that playing with fire is dangerous."

    And exactly how do you think that early man knew fire was dangerous? Someone got burned. Someone died.

    The A bomb isn't fire. It's much more distructive. It was unlike any force ever invented by man or god. No one knew the damage until the damage was done. It was like fire re-invented.

     
  • At 15/9/05 21:11, Blogger Charme said…

    "And exactly how do you think that early man knew fire was dangerous? Someone got burned. Someone died."

    Actually, you don't know that.

    Archaeological records show that from a very early stage, our ancestors used 'controlled fire' for many purposes...And the key word here is 'controlled', demonstrating that they were aware of the power of fire from the moment the first spark ignited. And you have to remember that they were a fairly superstitious lot who tended to be afraid of what they couldn't understand and would, more likely than not, be more wary of fire than we are today.

    We are the ones who take things for granted. Our forefathers did not.

    Even young children (well, most of them anyway) don't need to be told that fire is dangerous. They can feel the heat just from being near it...unless they're incredibly stupid, of course.

    Anyhow, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the US military knew what the A-Bombs were capable of...They just didn't know if it would work...and then here was this subject they could test it on.

     
  • At 19/9/05 05:07, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    Actually, your reading is off then. Of course they knew it would work. We tested them here out in the midwest. They were tested out in the desert with no one around. What we didn't know about was the extent of radiation.

    I think it's wrong and incredibly presumptious to speculate on the intentions of people who lived so long ago in a time you know nothing about. While I don't look at my government through rose coloured glasses, I don't see them as the evil men that you do. It was a time of war. We were a country whose recourses were greatly diminished. There were two evil [and I think we can agree on that one] empires who were intent on world domination. One fell. The other one had to fall quickly. The Bomb was an answer.

     
  • At 19/9/05 07:48, Blogger Charme said…

    Au contraire, that just validates my point of view. Radiation or no radiation, they could see how destructive it was. Your argument was that they didn't know. Anyhow, the bomb that was used in the Trinity test was not the same one that fell on Hiroshima, though I suppose you could say they were similar enough.

    Why is it wrong to speculate or have an opinion on something that happened so long ago? Hitler had plans to invade the rest of the world and carried out genocide. That hasn't stopped us from calling him a sick bastard. By your way of looking at things, we shouldn't judge the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbour either, since they lived years ago, and we weren't even born then!

    Anyhow, I never called the US government evil. Just because I believe someone's made a mistake doesn't mean I think they are scum of the earth.

     
  • At 19/9/05 20:19, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    You implied their intention was to use Japan as a target. I don't think that is so. If it was, that would be evil indeed. I believe they knew how destructive the initial blast was but I don't think they knew about the radiation. That was my point.

    by the way, they did discover a book written by Hitler but never published. Yes, the US was to be the final invasion. It's because he admired is so. Gee, if that's not a reality check.

     
  • At 19/9/05 20:19, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    You implied their intention was to use Japan as a target. I don't think that is so. If it was, that would be evil indeed. I believe they knew how destructive the initial blast was but I don't think they knew about the radiation. That was my point.

    by the way, they did discover a book written by Hitler but never published. Yes, the US was to be the final invasion. It's because he admired is so. Gee, if that's not a reality check.

     
  • At 20/9/05 22:33, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    Whoops, the message so nice I posted it twice.

     
  • At 21/9/05 16:28, Blogger Charme said…

    "Whoops, the message so nice I posted it twice."

    That sometimes happens with me too...Don't you get the option to delete your own comments? One function this lacks is the the ability to edit comments, post pictures or use html.

    "I believe they knew how destructive the initial blast was but I don't think they knew about the radiation. That was my point."

    Actually, I was referring to one of your earlier comments - "No one knew the damage until the damage was done. It was like fire re-invented." Radiation or no radiation, they had a pretty good idea of how destructive A-Bombs were.

    "by the way, they did discover a book written by Hitler but never published. Yes, the US was to be the final invasion. It's because he admired is so. Gee, if that's not a reality check."

    Are you referring to the one that's suspected to have been his diary? That's never been proven, although I don't find it difficult to believe Hitler had plans to squash the US out of jealousy, spite, and his own insecurity. Look what he did to the Jews! In retrospect, however, I can understand why the Germans followed him even though they were misguided. He was remarkably persuasive, and knew how to use the problems which existed in his own country to his advantage...A little like what the BNP are doing here in the UK. Goddamn skinheads!

     
  • At 21/9/05 20:29, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    No, not his diary. He wrote a book after Mein Kamf (i know that is terribly spelled wrong). It outlined his plans for world domination. For instance, he really thought England would join him because they were the better part of Europeans as well. He outlined his reasoning for wanting the US. ie, we had the best genes because the smartest, bravest man in the village came here. The idiots, his reasoning not mine, stayed there. He also sited native american genocide, immigration restrictions, and segregation as his inspiration. It was such a detailed account of his plans and reasoning that he stopped the plans to publish and had it stored away. it was proven it was his. They ran a battery of tests on paper, ink, typeset, and even his handwriting which was somewhere on the manuscript.

     
  • At 23/9/05 14:34, Blogger Charme said…

    I think there was a book written about how things could have turned out if Hitler's birth had been prevented, but I can't remember the title now. I'm sure there must be loads of alternative history publications out there about this...It's a topic that's been done to death.

     

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated, so don't bother posting SPAM because it won't even get looked at...Also, please stick to ENGLISH.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home