War 2015-05-26, 05:32:46 (I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… )Why do we fight wars?Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!(A fairly common European reaction.)What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!—————————————————————————————————I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…Are any of you brave enough?
Re: War Reply #1 – 2015-05-26, 05:47:07 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-26, 05:32:46To save both the Japanese peopleNow they were nuking Japanese populations for humanitarian purposes... My Goodness and you accuse Europeans of re writing history. It would help any discussion if you stop entering into paranoiac domains Oakdale.
Re: War Reply #2 – 2015-05-26, 06:07:47 [I'll wait to see if more knowledgeable posts ensue… Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? ]
Re: War Reply #3 – 2015-05-26, 07:12:40 Okay.You need a little more promting:QuoteAutomation Replacing People Jerry, “… This is both a humbling book and, in the best sense, a humble one. Ford, a software entrepreneur who both understands the technology and has made a thorough study of its economic consequences, never succumbs to the obvious temptation to overdramatize or exaggerate. In fact, he has little to say about one of the most ominous arenas for automation — the military, where not only are pilots being replaced by drones, but robots like the ones that now defuse bombs are being readied for deployment as infantry. …” This is part of an ongoing process that has spanned decades and started with the aircraft navigators. When I was a Navy C-130F navigator, 1982 through 1985 inclusive, we had six crewmen; pilot, copilot, flight engineer, navigator, radioman, and loadmaster. The current C-130J has a crew of three; pilot, copilot, and flight engineer/loadmaster. Indeed, the Navy and the Air Force stopped teaching celestial navigation back about the year 2003. The opening salvo of the “Rise of the Machines” and the displacement of the navigators came with the introduction and widespread deployment of compact aircraft inertial navigation systems (INS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. At first, the INS took 15 minutes to initialize the mechanical gyroscopes and would be thrown off by a gust of wind that rocked the wings of the aircraft, necessitating a further 15 minutes to re-initialize.. I remember sitting at Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland for the better part of two hours whilst the palletized INS we were using to ferry a short range T-39 Sabreliner executive transport jet re-initialized again and again as gusts of wind shook the aircraft. It was maddening to get to 14 minutes and 39 seconds into the 15 minute initialization process, only to have to start again when a particularly strong gust of wind shook the aircraft. Once the ring laser gyro system and its roughly 5 second initialization process entered the scene, we overwater navigators became much less necessary. This led apace to the elimination of in-flight navigators. The wisdom of eliminating us navigators in peacetime was beyond question as both a matter of economy and efficiency. How the U.S. military will cope in a war against a near peer adversary who can destroy a major portion of our GPS satellite constellation and fry the majority of our electronics, including navigation systems, remains to be seen. I went on to become an Information Technology Specialist in the federal civil service for 24 years before retiring at the end of August 2013; “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”
Re: War Reply #4 – 2015-05-26, 07:23:26 Jerry said a little more: "The military has not yet taken away the bayonet, nor should they."Does any one else understand what that means?
Re: War Reply #5 – 2015-05-26, 07:42:41 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-26, 06:07:47[I'll wait to see if more knowledgeable posts ensue… Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? ]Okay, so you are not saying the nuking was a humanitarian deed. You are saying the nuking was humane. How does this make your position any saner?
Re: War Reply #6 – 2015-05-26, 08:14:11 Mankind seems to have irresistible propensities for war and for religion.Neither is defensible or explainable.
Re: War Reply #7 – 2015-05-26, 09:36:10 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-26, 00:32:46I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!(A fairly common European reaction.)What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!—————————————————————————————————I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…Are any of you brave enough? In case anybody wondered, it's spelled s-u-p-e-r-c-i-l-i-o-u-s.
Re: War Reply #8 – 2015-05-26, 10:28:39 We fight wars for the same reasons other apes do, that we believe force can be more profitable than persuasion, and that fighting is preferable to surrender. That has proven true often enough that we persist. In total we would have been better off without wars, including "just" ones, or "humanitarian" as they are called these days, but that doesn't matter as long as it is believed profitable by those in the position to reap that profit. By the way these things go, they may not actually benefit, while others do without originally intending to, but it may still be worth the risk. Legally, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by definition not war crimes. Are some weapons less "just" or "humane" than others? Absolutely, mustard gas during WWII was a nadir of warfare, and many weapons are now illegal, using them would be a war crime. That includes the use of nuclear weapons under many circumstances. As a nudge towards warfare with less death, destruction and suffering, this makes sense.
Re: War Reply #9 – 2015-05-26, 13:19:14 Quote Why do we fight wars Human loves competition . in the old days ... Human Species used to Compete in the Wars nor everything related to War .and nowadays , Human competes in the Sport , techs , economies, etc . so it seems , "War" is coded right in the DNA of homosapiens ( sapiens ) , and that genes inherited times by times, from generation to generation . and in my opinion , those people that love wars are suffered for Hero Complex , God Complex , etc .i want to shout something like " War Complex nor Competition Complex " but there is no something like that in the Social science . on the other hand , the people united because have the same enemy .to reduce the risk of war in this species . utopically , the sollution is simple. Explore the universe , and get another enemies from different race .
Re: War Reply #10 – 2015-05-26, 15:24:16 Quote from: jax on 2015-05-26, 10:28:39Legally, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by definition not war crimes.It depends on who defines what's "legally". QuoteThe following is a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama on behalf of eight organizations involved in anti-nuclear or peace movements in and around Hiroshima. None is associated with a political party.
Re: War Reply #11 – 2015-05-26, 15:52:51 War isn't legal or illegal; it just is.I pulled this from The Atlantic magazine, 1946.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/QuoteAbout a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches.""Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you.""What would have happened then?" we asked.He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender.
Re: War Reply #12 – 2015-05-26, 18:23:55 Quote from: krake on 2015-05-26, 08:24:16It depends on who defines what's "legally".I guess that depends on if who's side you're on matters.The intent and structure of the aggression should be the only factor. But it's not. Regardless what I say your opinion of it will be jaded by how you perceive me. And for no good reason, only feelings. No one wants to see the fault caused by their fault. So somehow we have the arrogance to argue who is right when everything is wrong.
Re: War Reply #13 – 2015-05-26, 21:20:01 Hhmm. Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other. No-one has the same record in the military action and war matters and still goes on. Of course in your own case you will just circle this and get by saying it is bashing but looking beyond that limitation contradicts.Thinking back to the horror of atomic bombs in Japan killed large numbers of innocents but future generations were affected too. What made it more disgusting was that there had been behind-the-scenes things going on indicating that Japan knew they were finished and that they could end the war in a way that they kept their dignity. We might find that hard to accept due to the behaviour of the imperial Army but it was a deep rooted and very personal tradition in Japan. General McArthur had actually as well informed the President that surrender was coming. This was ignored and instead a damnable atom decision instead. Indeed much of what the US wanted in surrender terms was being discussed in Japan's top echelons and the feeling was that something could be agreed with that dignity superficial touch. but no the damnable instead.
Re: War Reply #14 – 2015-05-26, 22:00:12 Quote from: rjhowie on 2015-05-26, 14:20:01Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other.Thank you for proving my point. Oh, and ditto.Quote from: rjhowie on 2015-05-26, 14:20:01Of course in your own case you will just circle this and get by saying it is bashing but looking beyond that limitation contradicts.Of course in your case it is. That point can be made without it I agree. I'm not the US. Nor am I responsible for or qualified to judge the past. All I get to do is learn from it. If you ask me nuclear testing should be a crime against humanity. Both of our countries would answer for that one, no?Quote from: rjhowie on 2015-05-26, 14:20:01deep rooted and very personal tradition in Japan.Which is why Hirohito didn't stand trial. What was best for Japan was weighed, not just a lust for revenge. He asked the Japanese people to "bear the unbearable" in his surrender speech. Which doesn't sound like unconditional surrender was ever on the table. And then you are basing what you seem to think you know about MacArthur's knowledge on what? Very little probably, least you would of spelled his name right.You should consider the long term affects of radiation wasn't understood. Marie Curie had just died before the onset of war and may not of even understood why she was sick. I doubt much effort was given to the health concerns during the war. Further more the US does give compensation to those that were affected... Even from nuclear testing. The UK does not. But you've proved my point. You simply want to reach out and put down something that you don't like because of irrational feelings. Regardless if the reason you don't like the US has anything to do with the issue at hand. If you want to prove that wrong (?) back your statements up with proper use of who you are talking about (again I'm not the US nor do I agree with everything "American") and try to leave out the wasted words expressing how you feel about the US...Quote from: rjhowie on 2015-05-26, 14:20:01Trouble with discussing why there are wars in any principled way is slightly detached as you come from a land that has started one after another in one way or again, other.We are literally talking about the war Europe started here. Try to understand what you just did here. You won't, but try. There's plenty of fault to go around.
Re: War Reply #15 – 2015-05-26, 22:36:30 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-26, 06:07:47Perhaps, from someone who knows the difference between "humane" and "humanitarian"? You're losing faculties. It seems that ersi still has the patience for answer you, (under his harsh logical appearance he has a sensible heart...).I'll wait until you return as the old Oakdale that had something to say worthwhile instead of making us watching the decrepitude of a once bright mind...
Re: War Reply #16 – 2015-05-27, 02:05:36 Quote from: krake on 2015-05-26, 07:24:16It depends on who defines what's "legally".[From the letter:]QuoteWe also urge you to acknowledge that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was a crime against humanity involving the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians. Accordingly, we urge you to offer an official apology to the victims of these war atrocities. We are convinced that an American apology is vital to achieve the abolishment of nuclear weapons.The "explanations" later offered show the writer (and those other subscribing plaintiffs) to be woefully ignorant children…otherwise known as "academics".If the U.S. acknowledges these two "war crimes" — Great Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and, soon, Iran will give up their nukes?If psychological and Machiavellian analysis of history is pursued, the counter-factual is a required. But whimsical speculation fails as a support for such.
Re: War Reply #17 – 2015-05-27, 02:38:56 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-26, 05:32:46(I'll make this short: My previous attempt to post this fizzled… )Why do we fight wars?Sure, sometimes we're attacked and we have little choice — fight or die.There are also religious reasons, mostly incomprehensible to even our most devout brethren! But -then- there are philosophical differences between cultures (nations, military powers — call them what you will).The U.S. government's masters did not understand Japan. Their philosophy of war was beyond our ken.Some few of their senior officers (previous to and during WW II) did understand us, but could not escape the dictates of their philosophy.I've been asked if my nation's nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes… I've said no, and tried to explain a bit to the silly questioners. They not only remained convinced of the justification of their condemnations, they started to re-write history!(A fairly common European reaction.)What I'd of you is that you try to discuss here a simple proposition:To save both the Japanese people and the post-WW II U.S, Emperor Hirohito had to be humiliated!—————————————————————————————————I'll let you take it from there. You're bright enough…Are any of you brave enough? I'm bright enough and brave enough but not fool enough or energetic enough to present rational statements to the audience available in this forum.
Re: War Reply #19 – 2015-05-27, 21:03:29 Harris wanted to debate some war and terrorism with Chomsky. Here's the short version of the exchange for you, Oakdale. The longer version is on Harris' blog. I am giving you generous options to answer this question: Whose argumentation (and view of morality/legality) to you tend towards?1. Harris2. Chomsky3. Neither4. BothWith reasons. Tell why you answered the way you answered.
Re: War Reply #20 – 2015-05-28, 08:22:16 I'm familiar with both Harris and Chomsky…Harris is a well-known Voodoo Scientist, whose philosophical ideas are unarguably incoherent.Chomsky is probably the world's most well-known conspiracy theorist.While Harris' work is pure bunkum (fMRI statistics used to argue politics…), Chomsky's early work as a linguist was good; and his later work was brilliant — which is to say, interesting and productive. (Not necessarily correct, though! I'd put his Universal Grammar -the transformational generative version(s)- higher in likelihood than, say, Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness…. But still…)When someone first said, "There's no arguing tastes" they captured the full import of these two "celebrities" exchanging their views of morality!Only a fool would take them seriously. (Except for the possibility of fireworks! )
Re: War Reply #21 – 2015-05-28, 08:37:30 Thanks for the answer, but we are still not at the bottom of it.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-28, 08:22:16When someone first said, "There's no arguing tastes" they captured the full import of these two "celebrities" exchanging their views of morality!What is the point/factor/characteristic that determines when an argument about morals/laws is substantial and not merely about tastes? What makes Harris-Chomsky exchange merely about tastes? Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?
Re: War Reply #22 – 2015-05-28, 08:59:26 Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-28, 00:37:30Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?(I assume you meant conservative rather than "consie" — or was that some neologistic jibe? )I'd say that anyone who adopts a God-like omniscience leading them to moral certainty is -technically- insane, and dangerous…But anyone with a little humility and lots of experience (and some knowledge of history) can -given agreed upon facts- achieve a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events. (Indeed, projecting such into the future is what we expect our leaders to do! Isn't it?)Do you really believe Harris and Chomsky were disputing about facts?Note: Harris has claimed that there is no such thing as free will… So: Blame and exhortation and praise are pretty much beside the point, aren't they? (I mentioned his incoherence earlier: Anyone who rejects free will necessarily places morality beyond their realm of discourse… Or did he merely mean to pointlessly pontificate? Well, some of us here do that!) Last Edit: 2015-05-28, 09:28:17 by OakdaleFTL
Re: War Reply #23 – 2015-05-28, 11:05:26 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-28, 08:59:26Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-28, 00:37:30Do substantial differences exist at all on this topic? For example the consie pundits you quote every now and then, is their opinion a matter of taste or of the essence?(I assume you meant conservative rather than "consie" — or was that some neologistic jibe? )I was under the impression it was normal English as the native speakers use it. And I note that you didn't answer the actual question, whether the consie pov is something more than taste or not.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-28, 08:59:26I'd say that anyone who adopts a God-like omniscience leading them to moral certainty is -technically- insane, and dangerous…Mkay. And someone devoid of (God-like omni)science and with nothing to lead them to moral certainty would be technically sane or at least harmless? How is it working out for you?Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-28, 08:59:26But anyone with a little humility and lots of experience (and some knowledge of history) can -given agreed upon facts- achieve a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events. (Indeed, projecting such into the future is what we expect our leaders to do! Isn't it?)I tend to agree here, but it doesn't answer what to do about the definitional differences of morality, differences that are bound to have an effect on any and all understanding of moral dimensions, whatever the facts. For example, we are here in this thread discussing whether war and nuking is moral or not. We agree on the facts - war exists, nukes exist, we even agree that U.S. nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki - but we have diametrically opposed judgement of their moral dimensions. How come?Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-28, 08:59:26Do you really believe Harris and Chomsky were disputing about facts?No. First off, I don't believe. I observe. Second, Harris didn't have any two facts in the same category so as to permit "a reasonable understanding of the moral dimensions of actual events" at all. Chomsky had the facts and the categories to permit an analysis and to yield a moral evaluation of the events that onlookers can follow along. Harris didn't. So, it was not even a dispute, definitely not about the facts. Harris only has some quibble about the moral judgement on some events and policies, but since he lacks the factual and experiential context and the metaphysical categories to make his own analysis, he is just being his ordinary incoherently pontificating self.
Re: War Reply #24 – 2015-05-28, 20:08:20 Monday morning quarterbacking 70 years after the game has been played is going to accomplish what to anyone's satisfaction? Did the nuclear assault save a million allied lives and cause Japan's surrender or was it a war crime? There is plentiful evidence for both schools of thought. Many hundreds of thousands of allied lives were spared by the use of atomic weapons, there is little doubt of that. On the other hand, Japan's economy was collapsing in the summer of '45 because the US Naval Fleet blockade (subs), had effectively strangled oil and raw materials supply lines. If our fleet had simply lingered offshore for a few more months, we could have witnessed the Japanese people starve to death or perish under conventional bombing--much more humane to some here I'm sure. In short, today's evidence indicates that the Japanese had no chance of sustaining effective resistance. However, much that we now know was then uncertain (hence the 20/20 hindsight). In a discussion of what is humane in wartime, nobody here is arguing the use of nuclear bombs in the context of the March of 1945 fire-bombing raids that preceded it. 500,000 Japanese citizens were killed in those raids, more than twice as many as in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the decision making of using the A-Bomb saw themselves as setting a precedent for mass destruction in scale--in efficiency, yes I'm sure. More people died in the single March 9 incendiary attack on Tokyo than in the initial blast at Hiroshima (little was known then about the effects of radiation--Marie Curie probably died without knowing what killed her). Massive death and destruction was being rained on Japan in 1945, is it a war crime simply because we found a more efficient method of doing what we were going to do anyway? In August 1945, 50 million people had already died and I'm sure both sides were desensitized to killing. Moreover, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, I'm sure allied lives seemed precious indeed--while our enemy in turn, seemed neither to value his own nor those of the innocent. Those here who condemn the architects of Hiroshima seem to lack a certain humility in recognizing the frailties of decision-making mortal men grappling with dilemmas they have been spared. The allies spent $2 billion dollars on a huge gamble and it paid off--what extraordinary initiative at that time would have been needed for Truman to halt its deployment? Truman's judgement may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but can't one see how right it must have seemed to most of his contemporaries? (Please check your conspiracy theories at the door).
Topic: War (Read 26115 times)
